Sitting of 9 July 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Inter-city Services
    Ms. Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the inter-city strategy.
    Mr. Tom Coxasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement of future plans for inter-city railway services.
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received British Rail's proposals for its inner-city business.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I received the strategy study recently and have already had one discussion about it with the chairman. I shall wish to have further discussions with him before reaching a final view on the strategy.
    Ms. Richardson: Will the Secretary of State admit that it is impossible for inter-city to achieve its 5 per cent. return on assets by 1988, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes, without cities such as Aberdeen, Plymouth, Sheffield, Hull and Nottingham having their inter-city connections affected?
    Will he withdraw the Serpell-by-stealth policy and make sure—and give a guarantee to the House—that at least the present, inadequate level of inter-city services is maintained?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not know where the hon. Lady gets all that from. It is wholly untrue. The strategy study predicts a major improvement in the sector's financial performance by 1988–89. It does not yet show the business achieving the full 5 per cent. target in that year. The study is complex and important and I shall need to study it further before reaching conclusions upon it.
    Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Secretary of State aware that the great problems faced by British Rail are the target imposed upon it and the fact that, in developing an inter-city strategy, it has had to take note of what the Secretary of State says and balance that against possible cuts in services?
    Will the Secretary of State assure the House, therefore, that conditions will not be imposed by his Department of future developments, in particular on the development of the important east coast main line service?
    Mr. Ridley: I have received the study, which will be published by British Rail. It may be necessary to remove
    680
    some commercially sensitive matter. When the report is published and the hon. Gentleman can study it, he, with his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Richardson), will probably conclude that the newspaper reports they may have been reading are at variance with the study.
    Further, the objective of inter-city breaking even and, indeed, achieving a 5 per cent. target return on its assets is not affected by the PSO, because this part of the railway is treated differently for financial purposes.
    Mr. Waller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the acknowledgement from the Conservative Benches of the considerable efforts by British Rail's top management to run the business in an efficient and businesslike way? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incorrect to say that the Government have not supported British Rail in the past and that that has been shown to be a myth? Does my right hon. Friend accept that prolonged failure to reach a decision on the east coast main line will make it much more difficult for British Rail's top management to convince the work force of our commitment to a modern, efficient and profitable rail service?
    Mr. Ridley: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his well-deserved tribute to the efforts of British Rail's management to impart more commerciality into the railways. I entirely agree with him. I received the east coast main line submission on 25 May and the inter-city strategy on 22 June. They are major and complex documents and I should like time to make sure that I find the right answer. I hope to reply before the House rises for the recess but I know that the House will understand if, in the interest of getting the decision absolutely right, I do not succeed in making that deadline.
    Sir Dudley Smith: When next my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he impress upon him the importance of running inter-city services on time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been deterioration in that respect on the Birmingham-Coventry-Euston line, that on eight out of the last 10 occasions when I have used that service the train has been late, and that my experience is by no means unique?
    Mr. Ridley: Punctuality is an important factor of railway operation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw his unfortunate experience to the attention of the chairman, because it is he rather than me who is responsible for that. The railways can improve their financial performance partly by improving their punctuality, thus attracting more customers.
    Mr. Kirkwood: As the Secretary of State said that he received the report only on 22 June, will he make every possible effort to make a statement before the House goes into recess, because he will understand hon. Members' difficulties in asking him questions after that? Will he confirm that for an investment of about £200 million on the London-Edinburgh route British Rail could save almost £1 a mile, which is £1,000 per round trip? Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the importance of the electrification proposal for the whole of the south-east of Scotland, which depends exclusively on that route for transport south?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot confirm any of the hon. Gentleman's figures, which are new to me. His figure for the value of the investment is wrong, because the choice is between investment in new diesel stock or electrifying

    681
    the line. Either way, there has to be investment. With regard to the date, I told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) that I hoped it would be possible to give an answer before the House rose, but if it is not I am sure the House will agree that it is such an important issue that a little more time should be taken to get the answer right.
    Mr. Prescott: I am glad that the Secretary of State now recognises that inter-city cannot possibly pay its way by meeting its target by 1986. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is partly because its economics have been undermined by his competition policy for buses on the same routes. Will he confirm that the whole electrification programme does not depend upon an inter-city strategy and can stand on its own, as reports have said since 1978?
    Mr. Ridley: Inter-city does not quite meet the 5 per cent. target that we set for it, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic about how close it comes to it. However, he will see the figures for himself in due course. I do not accept that the inter-city strategy and the east coast mainline electrification prospectus do not go together. The business must be considered as a whole. The railways plan the business as a whole before major investment is contemplated on one or other part of it.
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many train miles of inter-city services were operated by British Rail in 1983; and what is the forecast number for the current year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The figure was 48·3 million in 1983. BR's latest forecast is that inter-city train miles will rise to 48·6 million in 1984.
    Dr. Marek: I am sure that that statement will be welcomed by the country, but will the Minister give us one assurance that major cities such as Leeds, Sheffield or Chester will not be deprived of their inter-city service as a result of his consideration of the inter-city strategy?
    Mr. Mitchell: Those are matters for British Rail, but I have no knowledge of any suggestion that any of those services would be eliminated from the inter-city network.
    Mr. Harris: When will the strategy be published? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of killing once and for all persistent rumours that high-speed train services to the west country and Cornwall are at risk?
    Mr. Mitchell: Once again, I have no knowledge of any proposal to cut train services to my hon. Friend's constituency. Publication is a matter for British Rail. I understand that it intends to publish the report, but it will do so without the commercially confidential information that it contains.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Under-Secretary of State know that the chairman of British Rail has refused to sanction electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead line, or even a high-speed train service from Euston to Holyhead? Does the hon. Gentleman know that the unemployment problems in Clwyd and Gwynedd are severe and that attempts to find new work would be greatly facilitated if such services were available? What will the hon. Gentleman do to enable British Rail to have the funding necessary so that my constituents have a better chance of gaining new work?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is for BR to decide which services it will provide and the type of train service—inter-city or otherwise.
    Mr. Corbett: The Government pay the money.
    Mr. Mitchell: It is for BR to decide. It is a matter of considering how many customers will be attracted, how many people will use the service and whether the service is viable and provides value for money for BR and the taxpayer.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that a most important inter-city route lies between the great city of Cambridge and the capital? Will he therefore look favourably on any proposal to electrify the line between Cambridge and Royston?
    Mr. Mitchell: The investment proposal for electrification of the line to Cambridge has already been approved on one route. The proposal was not approved on the other route because it was not the best value for money.
    Mr. Snape: Why are train services between Bristol and Manchester a part of the inter-city network, while those between Liverpool and Hull are not? What relevance does either of those lines have for the electrification of the east coast main line?
    Mr. Mitchell: The concept of the inter-city service has grown up over a period. It originated as a marketing exercise and has continued to its present form as a sector within British Rail. It is for British Rail to decide—[Laughter.] It is all very well for the Opposition to laugh. We do not manage the railways. It would be wrong for Ministers or politicians to seek to manage BR. That is much better done by professional railwaymen who know their jobs.

    British Rail
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with the chairman of British Rail since 14 May; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Ridley: I have had five meetings with the chairman of British Rail since 14 May, most recently on 4 July. Each time, we discussed a large number of matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Sims: Did any of those matters of mutual interest include the new timetables introduced on 14 May, especially as they affect my constituents and other commuters in south-east London? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the letters to the chairman of British Rail complaining about poorer services under the new timetables are only a fraction of the complaints voiced by the users of the service, who are further frustrated by continual delays and cancellations? Will my right hon. Friend invite the chairman of British Rail to review those services and to restore as quickly as possible an adequate and punctual service?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has done a splendid job in bringing those deficiencies to the attention of the chairman of British Rail, including during an Adjournment

    683
    debate to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responded. I am glad that I can tell my hon. Friend that British Rail recognises that some of the morning peak services on his line have been overcrowded. Recently, it lengthened two of the trains that call at Grove Park. It is now considering whether to stop two more trains there to help relieve congestion.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that —this follows the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) — that not only London but many other areas have been affected, some experiencing cuts of up to 25 per cent. and others cuts of more than 60 per cent., in spite of his allegation that the cuts would be no more than 2 per cent.? There has been a deteriorating service and overcrowded trains because BR has not been able to provide the services that would have been possible if the Government had not imposed those cuts. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will carry out an immediate assessment of the effects of the cuts to ensure that the same thing does not occur when new timetables are next introduced?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should know that his figure of 2 per cent. overall is about correct. That is for the whole of the railway network, and within such an average one can find better and worse figures, as he no doubt will seek to do. I do not believe that that is due to the Government's financial control of British Rail. I believe that it is due to the change in travelling patterns. British Rail is right to seek to meet passengers' demands —increasing services where they require it and reducing them when they do not.
    Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of British Rail whether it can compete fairly with deregulated coach services, given the low licence fees charged to those coach operators, and the considerable environmental disadvantages that are associated with road transport.
    Mr. Ridley: For longer distances within the country, the coach is cheapest, British Rail next and the aeroplane is the most expensive. I am interested to ensure that we try to even the competition between those three modes of transport to make it as fair as possible. That is why we have asked British Rail to make a modest return on its inter-city service and why in due course I shall be publishing proposals for the bus industry which may have some effect on the problem that my hon. Friend so rightly mentioned.
    Mr. Anderson: The Minister will be aware that earlier this year there was an unprecedented directive from Rail House to regional managers that they should not discuss investment priorities with parliamentarians. Was that done with the approval of the Minister, and does he have views on it as a proper way for the heads of nationalised industries to work?
    Mr. Ridley: If I were to have views and comment upon directives from the boards of nationalised industries to their managers, I should have time to do nothing else but read them. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong that I or any other Secretary of State should comment upon how the railways manage their internal affairs.
    Mr. Stanbrook: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail and discusses communter services, will he impress upon him the need
    684
    to take into account the experience and expertise of rail commuter organisations such as the Orpington District Rail Passengers Association, because they have a contribution and expertise to offer which is not always present in British Rail? They can help to match efficiency with the convenience of the travelling public.
    Mr. Ridley: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's comment. I believe that British Rail keeps in touch with its consumer bodies. I believe that it has now worked out beneficial proposals for keeping in touch with hon. Members about changes in timetables. I further believe that in the London area the arrangements for liaison between the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of London Regional Transport, which I am about to set up, will make for even more co-ordination.
    Mr. Wigley: At the meetings, did the chairman raise with the Secretary of State any uncertainty about the future of the Cambrian coast railway line and the central Wales railway line, about which there are rumours? If the chairman has not made any suggestion about the withdrawal or closure of those lines, will the Secretary of State say that clearly so that the users of those lines will be in no uncertainty as to their future?
    Mr. Ridley: At none of my meetings with the chairman of British Rail have those lines been mentioned, nor has there been any suggestion about their closure.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Has my right hon. Friend yet received a letter of thanks from the chairman of British Rail for his refusal to increase the speed limit on motorways from 70 mph to 80 mph, which can only be to help British Rail, because there is no other logical reason for it?
    Mr. Ridley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity, but the letter, which I await eagerly, has not yet arrived.
    Mr. Janner: As part of the Government's non-management or mismanagement of British Rail, have they become aware of the dissatisfaction felt by people who travel from St. Pancras to Leicester about the almost complete lack of investment on that part of the line? When he next sees the chairman of British Rail, will he please protest about that matter on behalf of my constituents and those who travel to my constituency?
    Mr. Ridley: It is funny, but I detect a growing body of support for and encouragement of British Rail from my hon. Friends. It seems that it is only the Opposition who are knocking it now.
    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of British Rail the deplorable standards of catering and buffet facilities on many inter-city trains? If he has not, will he say that privatisation is an option that is open to it?
    Mr. Ridley: Perhaps I spoke too soon. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has been pursuing the question of introducing private catering and capital into all of British Rail's catering activities at stations and on trains. I hope that we shall soon see an opportunity for competition and for others to supply a better service where they can.
    Mr. Cartwright: Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of British Rail its reported plans to reopen the Snow Hill tunnel connection to provide a through train route to cross London? In view of the obvious benefits of the scheme to travellers from north and south London, will he tell the House when it is likely to come into operation?
    Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. The chairman has not raised that matter with me.

    British Rail Engineering Ltd.
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what value, in £ sterling, were exports by British Rail Engineering Ltd. in each year since 1979 and to date in 1984; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The exports for each of the years were: £27 million, £34 million, £19 million, £3 million and £1·5 million.
    I understand that BREL's export sales between January and May 1984 were £12·3 million and that further orders worth some £50 million have been secured.
    Mr. Gregory: The House will agree that the most recent trend is encouraging after a fairly disappointing profile. In view of British Rail Engineering's large surplus capital, will my hon. Friend assure the House that British Rail management is putting its full resources into the export potential, and also that we have an opportunity to compete fairly within the European Community with French, German and other carriage works?
    Mr. Mitchell: BREL management is putting considerable resources into its export drive. Last week it launched its international coach. I joined BREL management in welcoming representatives from 20 overseas countries. It has already secured the first order for the coach, worth £3·3 million, from Gabon. The railbus is on demonstration routes in Thailand, Malaysia, Denmark and the United States. Further orders for rolling stock have been secured from Coras Iompair Eireann.
    Regarding European competition, there are difficulties where there are competing nationally-owned railway lines, but I shall consider my hon. Friend's point further.
    Mr. Eggar: In view of the considerable success of BREL, when does my hon. Friend think that he will denationalise it?
    Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend asked the chairman of British Rail to examine the way forward for BREL. That will be one of the options which the chairman will consider, but he has not yet reported to my right hon. Friend.

    British Airways
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the accountancy policy of British Airways.
    Mr. David Mitchell: British Airways' recently published accounts for 1983–84 accord with standard accounting practice, and were audited by a leading firm of accountants.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary agree that British Airways' accounting practices inflated the deficit in 1982–83 and the profits in 1983–84, and may
    686
    have a little to do with the Government's intention to dispose of the shares? Does he further agree that if the accountants were a team of ice skaters they would probably get more marks for artistic interpretation than for technical merit?
    Mr. Mitchell: The accounts of British Airways have been audited by a leading firm of independent auditors in the City. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's criticsm of the audit would be borne out by anyone outside the House who is involved in accountancy. The aircraft were previously valued without having a residual value after depreciation. They have now been given a residual value, which is in line with the general practice of other companies. The only other major change in the accounts is in the valuation of buildings and properties, which have been revalued from time to time, as is normal accounting practice.
    Mr. Higgins: Are any Government financial guarantees to British Airways still outstanding? If so, are they still needed?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister now make a clear statement on routes and their future? When he makes that statement—I hope soon—will he clearly show that the routes belong to the British people?
    Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has asked the Civil Aviation Authority to report on the route structure of British Airways. When that report is received and my right hon. Friend has considered it, he will announce his decision.

    Departmental Resources
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for controlling the use of resources in his Department following the report, "Financial Management in Government Departments."
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): We are currently engaged in a review of the objectives and cost of the Department's activities. An accountancy adviser has recently been appointed and the Finance Directorate is being strengthened to develop the Department's management accounting systems and review the planning and control of programme expenditure.
    Mr. Thurnham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What further progress has been made since the last report and what benefits have there been to the Department?
    Mrs. Chalker: Our review of objectives and costs is in progress. A performance indicator and output measures have been developed for the Department's main activities, and several were published in this year's public expenditure White Paper. The MAXIS system has completed its first trial year. We are using it to monitor and control the Department's administrative costs. We are making a significant increase in cost-consciousness throughout the Department, especially by giving line managers far greater freedom to make the best use of their budgets without constant referral.
    Mr. Maclean: With regard to cost consciousness in the Department, and with a view to improving economic performance, will my hon. Friend pay special attention to

    687
    the excellent booklet which she has just received from the Temple Sowerby bypass committee, which puts forward proposals for a bypass in my constituency at a fraction of the cost of the one originally planned by the Department, but which was later unfortunately scrapped? Does she agree that that is an economic use of resources?
    Mrs. Chalker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. Of course I will examine the booklet carefully. Any sensible cost saving that can be found will be given much further study.

    Sealink (UK) Ltd.
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress there has been with the privatisation of Sealink.
    Mr. Ridley: The British Railways Board invited formal bids for Sealink last week and bids have now been received. These are now being considered by the board.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that news will be welcomed by Sealink's employees, whose morale was beginning to suffer because of uncertainty about the company's future? Was he aware of some alarmist talk about industrial action over the plans to privatise Sealink, and does he therefore welcome the news that the executive committee of the National Union of Seamen has instructed its officials to seek talks with prospective buyers of Sealink as being in the best interests of all concerned with the company's future?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I confirm that that much more sensible course has been adopted by the NUS, which will seek talks with the successful bidder. The offers expire on 20 July, and I hope that a decision can be made before then.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that he is satisfied with the proposed privatisation of Sealink? Would it not be better to scrap the entire deal and start again, or let British Rail get on with the job of running the service properly?
    Mr. Ridley: Scrapping the entire deal would not do much good for ferries to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He would not be thanked on the Isle of Wight for his advice, and I shall not take it. We are evaluating the offers, and the sale will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that British Rail Investment Ltd., the body responsible for selling Sealink, has a deplorable record in the disposal of public assets—hotels and land —and in giving away Hoverspeed to management for £11 million, which was no price at all? Will he assure us that this time he will step in to prevent the disposal of an asset at a deplorable price and against the taxpayers' interest if the price so reflects it?
    Mr. Ridley: I would not agree to a sale at a price which did not reflect the value of the assets being sold. The relationship between British Rail and Sealink has been long and highly integrated. To some extent they depend upon each other, so the slight difficulty in defining the exact demarcation between the two has caused some comment. However, that is an inevitable part of the sale of such a company.

    Passenger Coaches
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any information on the number of new passenger coaches ordered and put into service since the deregulation of express road services and as to how many of these new coaches were British made.
    Mrs. Chalker: Many new express services have been introduced since deregulation, but the figures available for registrations of the vehicles do not distinguish between buses and coaches. Between 1980 and 1983 annual bus and coach registrations fell from about 5,800 to about 3,700. In 1980, 92 per cent. were vehicles made in Britain and in 1983, 79 per cent.
    Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities arising from deregulation give a real chance to British coach manufacturers and that those concerned with supporting British Leyland at Bathgate and elsewhere should encourage them to seek such opportunities rather than to rely on the continuation of bus subsidies?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a marvellous opportunity for British Leyland, not only in export markets, where it has already made significant new strides, but in this country arising from deregulation. I sincerely hope that the stimulus to provide a better quality of coach is a challenge which British Leyland will take up, because we know that it can produce the best coaches in the world if it is organised to do so.
    Mr. Wiggin: Is not the obvious success of these new services in no small measure due to the speed with which they are able to travel on our excellent motorway system? How does my hon. Friend align her decision last week to constrain motor cars — which, after all, are smaller, lighter and more manoeuvrable—to the same speed as these huge monsters?
    Mrs. Chalker: The modern coach, under good road conditions, is capable of travelling at a maximum of 70 mph. Cars may be able to do better, but there is absolutely no doubt that were speeds to be increased above what they are today there would be more tragic accidents and greater problems on our motorways.

    Orange Badge Scheme
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the present arrangements for the entitlement of an orange badge for disabled drivers.
    Mrs. Chalker: The tightening up of orange badge eligibility rules to cut out abuse of the scheme was agreed in advance with organisations representing disabled people, who welcomed the changes. I have received representations about a small number of difficult individual cases. I have great sympathy for such cases, but no scheme can possibly cater for every kind of disability and still remain workable.
    Mr. Atkinson: Has my hon. Friend had her attention drawn to the growing tendency of local authorities to replace car park attendants with the "Trust the Motorist" ticket-issuing machines, which disabled drivers, who would otherwise not be entitled to an orange badge, cannot reach, as a result of which they cannot park and shop? Will

    689
    she draw this point to the attention of social services authorities charged with determining the mobility of orange badge applicants?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have indeed noted that in some ticket display car parks the machines are sited at too high a level for a chair-bound person to reach, either to put in the money or to take out the ticket. We shall bring this to the notice of any local authority which is aware of its responsibilities in this regard. There is no reason why these machines cannot be sited at a slightly lower level.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister also bear in mind that often the machines put off disabled people from parking within car parks, as a result of which they resort to using their orange badges on roads with yellow lines? Surely there is a real need to consider whether these machines should be allowed at all, unless they are manned in such a way as to help the disabled to use these car parks.
    Mrs. Chalker: My own experience, and that of many disabled people with whom I have discussed this matter, is that, on the whole, these machines are among the simplest to operate. The hon. Gentleman has obviously come across a form of machine that is not so simple. I hope that he will draw the details to my attention so that I can take the matter further.

    Airways (Route Licensing)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now able to announce any conclusion on the study by the Civil Aviation Authority of route licensing.
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now received the report of the Civil Aviation Authority on its review of civil aviation policy.
    Mr. Ridley: No, Sir, but I expect the Civil Aviation Authority's conclusions within a week or two.
    Mr. Adley: As my right hon. Friend presumably referred the matter to the CAA in the first place to obtain an impartial and non-partisan view, does he agree that the understandable pressure from both British Airways and the independents is likely to make the decision much more difficult if it reverts to the political arena? In view of that, will he be sensible and give a categorical assurance now that he will accept and seek to implement the CAA report, when it is produced, regardless of its conclusions, and thereby avoid the differing pressures that he will receive from people as diverse as, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and former BOAC pilots now in the Cabinet?
    Mr. Ridley: We had better wait to see what the report says. He would be a brave man who bound himself to accept a report without knowledge of its contents. However, let me make it clear that I have remained entirely neutral throughout and said nothing about my views hitherto.
    Mr. Cartwright: In considering the recommendations of the CAA, will the Secretary of State seek to ensure that the privatisation of British Airways does not endanger the ability of the independent airlines to compete, to survive and to go on providing the services which the consumers clearly want?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes, but I believe that the proponents of more routes for the independents and those who believe
    690
    that BA should be left entirely as it is will acknowledge that the present dispute does not arise because of the privatisation of British Airways and that, even if British Airways were not be be privatised, the same arguments would be going on.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Court Room Accommodation
    Mr. Spencerasked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that sufficient court room accommodation is available for present requirements.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): The existing court room accommodation cannot be considered adequate for anticipated future needs. The general position is broadly satisfactory for present purposes, given the recent growth in work load and current accommodation standards. The Lord Chancellor is constantly considering fresh means of increasing and improving accommodation both by the construction of new court rooms and the ad hoc use of existing premises.
    Mr. Spencer: My right hon. and learned Friend is no doubt aware of the high standard of the courts in Leicester, but is he further aware that that high standard is not matched in places such as Newington Causeway, where temporary buildings have been in use for some years and where, in weather such as we have had recently, new poignancy is given to the phrase "the defendant got a grilling"? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House any idea when those buildings are likely to be taken out of use?
    The Attorney-General: There has been a extensive programme since the early 1970s, on which £118 million has been spent. Since 1980 there has been a net increase of 54 court rooms — new ones and others replacing many old and unsuitable ones which had reached the end of their days. I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend to the extent that, in the near future, we hope to provide 59 more courts. By the end of the decade there will be about 76 more, at an extra cost of £200 million.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Attorney-General accept that it is intolerable that thousands of men and women are remanded in custody for periods up to at least 12 months awaiting trial partly because of the shortage of court room accommodation? Will he put more steam behind the provision of new accommodation?
    The Attorney-General: A great deal of improvement has been effected, especially as regards those remanded in custody. The development that is going on is quite reasonable, especially when we have, as far as possible, to identify premises—they need large areas of land—suitable for the arrangements of all those involved in court cases.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the sooner we introduce tape-recorded interviews in serious cases in the Crown courts, and the sooner the Government make statements for the prosecution available to the defence in magistrates' courts, the sooner it will become less necessary to consider extending court accommodation?
    The Attorney-General: Despite my hon. and learned Friend's ingenuity, I cannot see how that arises out of the question.
    Mr. Ryman: To be fair, there has been a vast improvement in the provision of new court accommodation. However, will the Attorney-General ensure that there is an intensification of consultation between the Property Services Agency and those who work in the courts, as there have been a number of examples recently where those who work in the courts have not been consulted and modifications have had to be made subsequently?
    The Attorney-General: I should be grateful if I could be informed of those cases. I recall that when the major extension to the Central Criminal Court was being considered there was massive consultation between the Bar, solicitors and everybody else concerned.

    Riotous Assembly
    Mr. Adleyasked the Attorney-General how many charges of riotous assemly have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the most recent convenient period.
    The Attorney-General: Riot is not an offence which has to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but chief officers of police may refer cases to him if they need advice or assistance. So far as the records show, no such references were made in 1979, 1982, 1983 or so far this year. In 1980 four cases were referred, resulting in 11, 12, 10 and 21 persons, respectively, being charged with riot. In 1981, five cases were referred, resulting in 15 persons being charged with riot in one case.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of my constituents find it hard to give credence to the fact that the riotous behaviour, organised violence, intimidation and threats to workers that they see on their television screens every night does not give rise to many prosecutions for breaking the criminal law, and, indeed, for contravening the law of riotous assembly, the understanding of which is clear to all? What can my right hon. and learned Friend say to my constituents about the apparent leniency being shown to those people?
    The Attorney-General: The decision whether to prosecute, and for what offence, must be a matter for the chief constable or the police authority concerned. I do not think that my hon. Friend can know the facts. Let us consider two places. In Rotherham, which contains Orgreave, 251 cases are outstanding, 124 persons have been charged with unlawful assembly and 26 with riot. In Mansfield, 54 persons have been charged with riot. Therefore, that offence is being used quite widely in the area.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Is not the meaning of the old offence of riotous assembly far from clear, and is not a thoroughgoing review of such offences needed before the law can be properly applied in a way that is understandable to all?
    The Attorney-General: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the law of riot creates some grave evidential problems, but, as I said at my previous Question Time, I am particularly interested in the recommendations of the Law Commission to produce three types of unlawful
    692
    assembly which will be triable either way and, therefore, if consented to by the defence, could be dealt with quickly. That matter should be considered carefully.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people in Britain are concerned about the organised efforts of riotous assembly at the moment? Is not one of the problems arising out of the present miners' dispute that if charges of riotous assembly or affray are brought against individuals a great delay will take place, as those are indictable offences, which will have to be tried by jury, and consequently a great period of frustration will occur?
    The Attorney-General: That is right. The delays can be quite considerable. There are several alternative offences which could and often are charged. There are various assaults, criminal damage, and, if necessary, the Explosive Substances Act can be used. The alternatives that are available in a number of cases have been properly used.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Because the law of riotous assembly is so unclear, as the Attorney-General agreed, would it not be a good idea for those cases that go to the DPP to be looked at by the learned Attorney-General himself?
    The Attorney-General: Of those that have been referred to the Attorney-General so far—I think there are six—none includes riot. It is entirely a matter of discretion for the chief constable or for the county prosecuting solicitor to decide whether to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. If they are referred, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Attorney-General is usually consulted. I hope that that would follow in this case.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that night after night ordinary people who are not lawyers see on the box most disgraceful acts being committed? What is happening to those rioters? Our present legal system may be somewhat antiquated, but is it not able to deal with mob rule such as we have today?
    The Attorney-General: This cannot be described generally as mob rule. On a number of occasions there has been serious intimidation and violence. In such cases the decision must be left to chief constables. There is no way in which the Government can or should intervene in such circumstances. Chief constables are very experienced. The number of arrests exceeds 3,000 since the strike started, and, as I said to the House, a comparatively large number of people have been charged with unlawful assembly and riot, which are two separate offences. Some 124 have been charged with unlawful assembly and about 70 with riot. I emphasise that I should not wish to influence the chief constables in this matter.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the Attorney-General aware that there is considerable anxiety about the working of the Bail Act in connection with persons charged with offences arising from picketing? Is he further aware that in so-called picket courts, bail forms, with conditions already printed, are given to the magistrates even before hearings take place? Is not this appearance of pre-judging an affront to British justice, in which each case should be seen to be decided on the evidence? How can the blanket imposition of conditions on picketing miners, who may face only minor charges, be reconciled with the granting of

    693
    unconditional bail to persons charged with serious offences? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the working of the Bail Act in mining areas over the past few weeks?
    The Attorney-General: I have no evidence to show that magistrates are not dealing with each application for bail on its merits and individually. It does not matter what is printed on the form. It may be for convenience, in case those are the conditions that are imposed. It is a matter for the judgment of magistrates when dealing with applications. I have no evidence that magistrates are approaching this matter in the wrong way.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Africa (Aid)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the present level of British bilateral aid to agriculture in Africa.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Our bilateral aid is allocated on a country basis and not by economic sector, but I attach much importance to the development of agriculture in Africa and I am very ready to approve worthwhile proposals for aid for this purpose.
    Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance of his commitment to agriculture in subtropical Africa. Will he bear in mind that the figures that he recently gave me show that since 1980 there has been a drop of about one third in aid to agriculture in tropical Africa, and that the current figure of aid for agricultural projects in tropical Africa is a paltry £15 million? I cannot believe that that is in line with the right hon. Gentleman's order of priorities. Can he give the House an assurance that commitments for the future mean that that decline will be reversed and that the aid that Britain is giving bilaterally to agriculture in Africa will increase?
    Mr. Raison: The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are about project aid, and that is only part of the picture. Increasingly, aid today embraces programme and sector aid, which is not possible to allocate in this way. Project aid in other sectors, such as roads, can greatly benefit agriculture. I remain committed to the belief that the development of agriculture in Africa is of high priority.
    Mr. Budgen: Before my right hon. Friend gives away more of the taxpayers' money to African countries, will he please have a word with the EEC Commission and remind it that dumping agricultural produce in Africa, such as maize in Tanzania, may deal with a short-term problem, but that in the long term it will create much greater difficulties?
    Mr. Raison: The European Commission is aware of our views about food aid and our belief that it should not be used indiscriminately. It is fair to say that Commissioner Pisani has accepted this view and has supported us in our efforts.

    Joint Funding Scheme
    Mr. Maplesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future level of financial support for the joint funding scheme.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support and encourage voluntary agencies in the field of overseas development.
    Mr. Raison: Subject to parliamentary approval, I propose to set aside £4·8 million in 1985–86 for the joint funding scheme, which enables us to finance half the costs of certain development projects undertaken by British voluntary agencies. This will represent an increase of one third on this year's revised allocation of £3·59 million and a doubling of the allocation in 1983–84.
    Mr. Maples: That is a welcome statement, although the sum involved is only a relatively small proportion of the total aid budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that aid given through voluntary bodies is not only cheaper but quicker? Does he think that there is scope for utilising more of the aid budget in that way?
    Mr. Raison: I agree that aid given through the voluntary sector has many advantages, not least that it can reach the poorest people directly. I shall certainly be thinking positively about our future allocations to the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Chapman: I also welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that the track record of voluntary agencies shows that generally they are able to get aid to the poorest and most needy people, particularly in emergencies? For that reason, if for no other, will my right hon. Friend accept the welcome of his hon. Friends for what he said?
    Mr. Raison: I accept the welcome of both my hon. Friends. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has just said about the voluntary agencies. However, the joint funding scheme is not about emergency aid; it is about the longer-term development programmes. But it is important.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: While paying tribute to the work of voluntary agencies in the Third world, not least in the Sahel area and in Central America, may I make it clear that a recent reply by the Minister shows that net overseas development assistance has fallen to 0·35 per cent. of GDP, which is only one half the United Nations' target and is exceeded by virtually every other country in western Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to a major increase in aid to voluntary agencies and in the overall overseas development aid programme? If not, will he admit that his record so far has been that of a Minister for underdevelopment rather than that of a Minister serving the interests of developing countries?
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was almost wholly irrelevant to the question on the Order Paper. Our record on the voluntary sector has been extremely good, and I intend to maintain it.

    Aid Distribution
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations

    695
    he has received to ensure that funds for overseas development are given to individuals rather than organisations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Raison: I am not aware of any representations having been made on directing aid funds towards individuals rather than organisations. All aid is given with the ultimate intention of benefiting individuals, but is normally channelled through appropriate organisations, for the most part Governments or multilateral institutions.
    Mr. Proctor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the virtues missing from some of the countries which are the targets of overseas aid is capitalism? What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to spread individual entrepreneurial skills to promote capitalism in those countries?
    Mr. Raison: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said. I believe that it is important that private enterprise in this country should play its part in promoting development overseas, which it can do by investment, and that the private sector in developing countries has a great deal to contribute to the success of those countries.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that both multilateral and voluntary organisations can be extremely effective in the administration of aid?
    Mr. Raison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has considerable experience in this area.

    Africa
    Mr. Bowen Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist Africa to offset the effects of world recession and drought.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will institute a fund for the African Commonwealth countries suffering from drought.
    Mr. Raison: We are continuing to provide drought-related assistance on the substantial scale maintained in the last financial year. New machinery would not in itself increase the generous proportion of our aid already directed at African Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Wells: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the real answer to drought and recession in Africa is not to chuck money at the problem, in the form of food aid or disaster relief, but to promote projects which deal with the problems of agriculture at times of drought? We need more research into drought conditions and more projects designed to cope with those conditions, such as water conservation projects. We should also provide foreign exchange, possibly through the aid budget, to enable agricultural projects to fund the extra money needed from foreign exchange sources to enable them to continue.
    Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is very much a development rather than a short-term emergency matter. However, we have to do what we can to meet the immediate crises, and I think that we have made a good contribution in that respect, too.
    Mr. Janner: I suggest that in the past our contribution to drought relief has been insufficient, and that it will be even less sufficient next year as the drought continues to make life miserable and death near to so many people in Africa, including those in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Kenya, which I recently visited. Will the Minister, on behalf of the British people, make a generous gesture to those who are in such misery as a result of the drought?
    Mr. Raison: I accept that there is a grave problem in Africa, but we have not done badly. Our commitment in the past financial year totalled £24 million. So far this year we have committed £13 million, and we will, of course, continue to watch the matter very carefully.
    Mr. Deakins: Does the Minister recognise that the rapidly rising populations in Africa also contribute to the damage done by the drought and the world recession? Will he bend his mind to trying to increase our contribution to population programmes in countries which are also suffering from those disadvantages?
    Mr. Raison: Population is a very important aspect of the problem. The World Bank has just published an important report on the matter, and we shall play our part at the conference in Mexico in August. I accept that population measures should play a significant part in our aid programme.

Water Supplies
3.31 pm
Mr. Rob Hayward (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rapidly deteriorating water supplies.
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): Over the past three months rainfall in the United Kingdom has been substantially below average and in some parts, notably Wales and the south-west, it has been less than half the normal amount. Reservoirs in Wales, the south-west and Cumbria are low, and the 30-day forecast is for warm, dry weather in all parts of the country.
Since the drought of 1976, water resources have been augmented in many places and distribution systems improved, but demand has risen—in particular, the peak summer demand.
To conserve supplies in the areas of shortage water authorities have prohibited the use of hosepipes, and these bans now affect some 9 million people. The Government have also made 18 orders under the Drought Act 1976, authorising water authorities and companies to augment supplies by reducing river levels. During a meeting with the chairman of the South West water authority on 23 May I confirmed that the Government expected water authorities to take early action to safeguard supplies. This advice was repeated to all water authorities on 6 June so as to avert the need for more drastic steps later on, such as rota cuts or supplies only from standpipes.
We shall as necessary make orders authorising water authorities and companies to prohibit other inessential uses of water. My Department will keep in close touch with all water authorities and companies, and I am asking those bodies to report to me on a weekly basis.
I urge everyone to use water responsibly. The water authorities and companies are best able to judge what economies are needed in their areas. I stress how important it is to comply with their advice and with the terms of any statutory limitions in force from time to time.
Mr. Hayward: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the advice that he has been given, in the light of the fact that on 1 May this year I was told in a written parliamentary answer that water supplies were
"in good shape except for some small reservoirs in the northwest".—[Official Report, 1 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 112.]
and yet restrictions now apply to 9 million people?
If orders are to be made under the 1976 Act, will the cuts be applied first to industries, or to individual consumers?
Mr. Gow: I have looked at the question to which my hon. Friend referred. The truth is there has been no rain since 1 May and that makes a difference.
It is the policy of the Government, the water authorities and the water companies that priority should be given to keeping supplies open to industry, and of course to agriculture. If it is necessary to impose further restrictions, I believe that the House and the country will think it right that the inessential use of water should be restricted.
Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister might be aware that the Opposition will neither blame him nor give him credit for the fine weather. The fact remains
698
that 9 million people are now subject to some form of restriction in the use of water and, for many of them, water rationing cannot be far away.
Although the Government are not responsible for the weather, they are responsible for the financing and organisation of the water industry. How much longer must we tell people in the south-west, the north-west and Wales —it is always the same areas—that they must suffer such restrictions? Why is there poor planning in the water industry, Government cuts in development plans for water supply and imposition of external financing limits by the Government on the water industry in the face of so much evidence that the contrary should be the case? Much more investment is needed in the water supply industry.
Should not the Government consider the development of a national water grid? How did the Water Act 1982 help, as it barred the press and the public from consideration of these issues, deprived consumers of a proper role in the planning of the industry and discussion of its problems and abolished the Water Council?
Mr. Gow: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. It was the view of the Labour Government, and it is certainly the view of the present Government, that the capital expenditure required for a national water grid could not possibly be justified.
Mr. Denis Howell indicated dissent.
Mr. Gow: I am giving the Government's view. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is muttering from a sedentary position, says that he favoured a national water grid, he should remember that he was not able to implement one when he was at the Department of the Environment.
With regard to the reforms resulting from the Water Acts of 1973 and 1983, both of which were passed by Conservative Governments, we now have much more streamlined water authorities, which I believe are far better able to cope than was possible under the previous arrangements. I believe that the exclusion of the press from meetings of water auhorities was a wise move which has improved the administration of the water industry.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that reservoir levels in Devon and Cornwall are already significantly lower than they were in June 1976? Will he confirm that more than 24 per cent. of Britain's potential water supply is lost between the reservoir and the user? Does he agree that that points to the need for a major investment programme to update our out-of-date infrastructure in this respect?
Mr. Gow: Yes, but I must remind my hon. Friend that investment in the water industry, as elsewhere, must be conducted within the necessary restraints on public expenditure. We believe that we are better placed today than we were in 1976 to deal with the serious problem that exists in the area that my hon. Friend represents.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am forced to observe that if the result of streamlining the water industry is our continuing to have times during which there is no water, the result of streamlining the cities might well be no services. Is the Minister willing to instruct his officials to come up with a costed and public

699
proposal to see whether a national water grid should be a matter for Government policy, to be implemented as soon as possible, rather than merely to say no to the idea?
Mr. Gow: I have already said that the cost of a national grid would not be justified.
Sir Hugh Rossi: In past years the lowering of water levels in rivers has led to an increase in the concentration of nitrates in the water supply in the Thames and Lea valleys to an extent considered unacceptable by the World Health Organisation. Can my hon. Friend assure me that there are measures in hand to prevent that sort of danger from arising?
Mr. Gow: I give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Minister aware that water rate payers in Wales are sick and tired of paying through their noses for water and finding that water supplies are not available? Is he further aware that for weeks there have been restrictions on water usage in Wales, whereas cities which get their water from reservoirs in Wales have not suffered the same restrictions? Is it right that the Welsh water authority has asked for even more draconian powers to cut water supplies in Wales?
Mr. Gow: I should not use the word "draconian". I have no responsibility for Wales, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), is sitting next to me and I know that he will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I come from a part of the United Kingdom from which, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, water is pumped. As he also said, the Welsh people are sick and tired of being told after a few weeks of dry weather that they must not use any water. Does my hon. Friend accept that it is high time the Government reviewed the issue and, if need be, invested more capital in the water industry?
Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will be writing also to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Denis HowellIs the Minister aware that he has been misinformed and wrongly advised? The great lesson of the 1976 drought was that we should have a water grid to which each of the 11 authorities would be linked. There is no shortage of water even now, but difficulties have arisen because we are not transferring water from north to south and from west to east, which could be done by using the rivers. The previous Labour Government decided that capital works to provide that type of grid should be undertaken, and much work was done in preparing such a scheme. That work was in hand when the Labour Government went out of office. Why is it that our people are suffering deprivation only three months after we were told that there was no water shortage? Will the Minister consider the establishment of a system of water transfers from areas of plenty to areas of shortage?
Mr. Gow: I shall listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's advice. However, the Government have no plans to construct a national water grid.
Mr. Peter Rost: Does my hon. Friend accept that there would be no water shortage, despite the drought, if water were not lost between the reservoir and
700
the consumer? Is it not time to review the water authorities' investment programme? Much of the investment would be highly cost-effective, as the processing and cleaning of the water that is being wasted has been paid for.
Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right, because there is a loss of water from the reservoir to the consumer. It is to that problem that a significant part of the investment in the water industry in recent years has been devoted. There is scope for further improvement.
Mr. Ron Davies: Is the Minister aware that the feeling of anger is especially bitter in Wales following the promise after the 1976 drought that there would never be shortages again? How can he justify the present shortage, when water is being sold by the Welsh water authority to the Severn-Trent authority? We have been promised increased water rate bills next year and we are not even getting the water that we have paid for this year. At what stage in the drought will the Minister consider introducing a rebate for those who have been deprived of water for the past six weeks or so, and who face a long and dry summer?
Mr. Gow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, where a hosepipe is charged for separately by an authority or company and a ban is imposed, the authority or the company is required to give a reasonable rebate.
I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question on the wider issue to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales.
Mr. Gerrard Neale: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the west country there were two months prior to 1 April during which there was a dramatic drop in the rainfall, and that anyone locally could have told him that even the slighest drought would have induced the problems that we are now seeing?
Will my right hon. Friend comment on reports that the South West water authority is to acquire water from the north-east, perhaps in substitution for those tanker ships taking it out to the middle east?
Mr. Gow: With regard to the possibility of the South-West water authority buying water from the Northumbrian water authority, my hon. Friend may know that the Northumbrian water authority has indeed entered into a contract to sell water to Gibraltar. It would be possible, if the South West water authority decided to do so, for a similar purchase to be made by that authority from Northumbria, but that is a matter for the chairman of the South West water authority to consider.
Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Minister aware that an increasing source of complaint is the standing charge that water consumers pay? When hon. Members take up the question with chairmen of water authorities, they are always told that the purpose of the standing charge is to improve supplies and general services. When will that money be used to provide the services about which many hon. Members on both sides of the House are complaining?
Mr. Gow: If the standing charges were abolished, the price of water would have to be increased.
Mr. Roger King: What advice is my hon. Friend giving local authorities about fire hazards, which are obviously inherent in a long period of drought?
Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there is an increased risk of fire. The Forestry Commission and the fire authorities—the county councils—will continue to give such advice as is appropriate, as will the Central Office of Information.
Mr. John Cartwright: As the Minister has confirmed that one water authority is exporting water while others are in desperate need, will he consider the possibility of sending emergency supplies from areas of surplus to areas of need? If he will not embrace the idea of a water grid, will he at least put pressure behind the idea of an emergency attack on the problem?
Mr. Gow: As I said earlier, I am in the closest touch with the water authorities, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be considered.
Mr. David Harris: Is not the lesson to be learnt from the unhappy experience of the past few weeks, particularly in the south-west, that there must be more expenditure on basic infrastructure? I accept the difficulty in regard to public expenditure. If necessary, there should be a reduction in discretionary regional grants to pay for it.
Mr. Gow: I have said that investment in the water industry will have to be governed by the truth, which seems to be forgotten by the Labour party, that the resources available for public investment are not unlimited.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Is the chairman of the Welsh water authority right, or wrong, when he says that the situation would not have occurred had the authority been allowed capital spending, and were it not for Government cuts? Is it right that half the water of Wales should be exported to authorities where there is no water shortage, when Wales is suffering from a drought? What will the Minister do about water equalisation rates? He has not given a straight answer to that question.
Mr. Gow: I have not seen the remarks which the hon. Lady attributes to the chairman of the Welsh water
702
authority, but I shall draw her question to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who will write to her.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my hon. Friend completely discount the idea of a national grid? Will he consider the use of canals—many of which are falling into disuse—as channels?
Mr. Gow: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Has my hon. Friend any information on whether British people are having more baths, as contrasted with people in other countries, where there is increasing use of showers, which require less water?
Mr. Gow: I do not have the statistics to which my hon. Friend refers. Should I be able to unearth them, I shall send them to him.
Mr. Barry Jones: In south Wales the drought conditions have become more severe than those of 1976. Does the Minister appreciate that, had the Wye-Usk transfer scheme been in operation this summer, with its capacity of 15 million gallons per day, the increasing gravity of the water shortage would have been greatly reduced? Why did the Government not provide sufficient funds for the vital Wye-Usk scheme, which was planned long ago and sanctioned by the previous Labour Government? South Wales faces a period in which intense and damaging pressure will be put on the tourist, agriculture and manufacturing industries. A more determined and generous Government would have prevented that.
Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman falls into the same trap as that of his hon. Friends. He believes that it is possible to spend unlimited sums of money in the public sector, when the truth is that that is not possible.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary tells me that the Wye pumping station has been put into operation and that 4 million gallons of water a day are being transferred to Court Farm treatment works, serving British Steel at Llanwern and part of the Newport area.

Mr. Umaru Dikko (Abduction)
3.51 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the abduction of Mr. Umaru Dikko, which will bring the House up to date on developments since the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the House on Friday. Police and other inquiries are continuing. I will make a further statement to the House later this week.
As the House will know, a British Caledonian aircraft with its crew and passengers was unlawfully detained by the Nigerian authorities in Lagos from 5 to 7 July. We protested strongly to the Nigerian authorities both in London and in Lagos at this totally unjustified and unlawful act. Subsequently we have made a further strong protest about the conditions under which the passengers were held at Lagos airport. The plane was released at 1400 local time on Saturday 7 July and arrived back in the United Kingdom at about 4.30 on Sunday morning.
I understand that air services between the United Kingdom and Nigeria are now functioning normally.
Meanwhile, the police are continuing their inquiries into the abduction of Mr. Dikko and the attempts to smuggle people out of the country. I am advised that these have made some progress but that they are not yet complete, not least because it has only just become possible for the police to start questioning Mr. Dikko. I understand that some criminal charges are likely to be brought quite soon.
I appreciate, of course, that the House wishes to have the fullest and earliest possible information on these aspects, but it is important that any decisions that have to be taken should be based on the fullest available information and should not interfere with or prejudice police inquiries. That is why neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend can make a definitive statement on these aspects today and why I may have to decline to answer fully some of the questions which may arise.
Nevertheless, it is already clear that if the police are to be able to complete their inquiries satisfactorily they will need to interview members of the Nigerian high commission staff. This need arises from the presence at Stansted airport on 5 July of at least one member of the Nigerian high commission staff and vehicles from that high commission. The Nigerian high commissioner has, accordingly, today been asked specifically to allow the police to carry out the necessary interviews, and told that we require a very early reply to this request.
As the House will know, it is the duty of all persons enjoying privileges and immunities in accordance with the Vienna convention to respect the laws and regulations of their host country. It is plain that the commission of acts of violence on British territory and the plotting of the abduction of a person from the United Kingdom is a matter of the gravest concern. Not least in view of the good relations which have traditionally existed between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, I am sure that the House will join me in looking for an early and positive response from the Nigerian high commissioner. As I have already made clear, the Government will keep the House fully informed of further developments.
Mr. George Robertson: We appreciate that police inquiries are still going on into this outrageous kidnapping and that the final position of the Government must await the police conclusions. We in the Opposition associate ourselves with the widespread praise for the outstanding police and customs operation during this incident. However, given what is already known about the incident, why is not possible to make our general position quite clear here and now? Why are we still pussy-footing around the issue? In May, after the Libyan siege, the Foreign Secretary said:
"We shall be ready to use this power"—
the power of expulsion—
"as an exemplary measure against any mission that the Government have good reason to believe is responsible for unacceptable activities in this country."— [Official Report, 1 May 1984; Vol. 59 c. 212.]
Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that his strong words in May are followed by appropriately strong action in July? Will he tell the House that if any diplomat is found to have been implicated in this crime he or she will either face trial, or, if immunity is not waived to allow it, he or she will be expelled forthwith? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the considerable concern in this country, given the fact that London has a number of foreign exiles, many of whom are accused of crimes, both real and imaginary, back home, and that all of them would be at risk if this sort of violent, illegal repatriation were to be in any way legitimised?
Can the House be assured that, whatever the letter of the Vienna convention, if British officials suspect that human beings are in properly or improperly labelled diplomatic baggage, unilateral action will be taken by this country to open it? Might this not be an area for an initiative in the Commonwealth, to eradicate the possible abuses of diplomatic baggage?
Although we are close and long-standing trading and Commonwealth partners of Nigeria, and very much want it to remain that way, we must make it crystal clear that the British people will not tolerate the importation of any official or quasi-official terrorism and crime on to our streets.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining the extent to which Her Majesty's Government and, from what has been said already, hon. Members in alt parts of the House condemn actions of the sort of which the hon. Gentleman has complained. One of our purposes must be to take steps to try, so far as is humanly possible, to keep such action off the streets of this country, and, indeed, out of the country altogether. There is no question of the Government, as the hon. Gentleman put it, pussy-footing around the matter. It is right for us to take the steps that I described to make the matter quite clear. I agree that the chances of a trial taking place depend entirely on whether immunity is waived, but it was right for me to make the request that I made of the Nigerian high commissioner for co-operation along the lines that I described.
The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the change that will take place if there is evidence that a human life is endangered by the purported use of diplomatic bags or baggage. That matter was regarded as of the utmost importance on Friday, and will always be so regarded in any similar case. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have taken steps to raise the measures which we propose for consideration both at the London economic

705
summit and in the European Community. Also, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was at the meeting of Ministers from the Council of Europe. The hon. Gentleman made the important additional suggestion that we should canvass the matter among Commonwealth Governments. I shall bear that firmly in mind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that he will make a further statement later this week. I have to take into account the fact that this is an important Back Benchers' day, so I propose to allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.15. I shall give preference to hon. Members who were not called on Friday.
Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the Nigerian authorities that, while normal requests for extradition will be processed by our courts in the ordinary way, public opinion in this country will not stand for extradition to a Government who have sought to take the law into their own hands in this way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. As he will appreciate, such matters between Commonwealth Governments are considered under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. No request under that Act has been received in respect of Mr. Dikko, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary told the House on Friday. If any such request were to be received, it would be transmitted to my right hon. and learned Friend and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Those provisions take some account of the important points raised by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: What does the Foreign Office think would be the position in law if diplomatic immunity were not waived by a high commission or embassy about questioning or charging one of its staff?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The questioning of staff does not require a formal waiver of diplomatic immunity. It simply requires a positive response to the request that I have made. The matter of diplomatic immunity can, of course, be raised, for example, in answer to a would-be arrest taking place. As was made plain on Friday, we would look to the Government of a friendly country to respond positively and favourable to such action. If they did not respond positively and favourably, that would influence our view of the matter.
Mr. Peter Hordern: If the Nigerian authorities do not accept that they should have responsibility for those who have carried out this crime, what further measures will my right hon. Friend implement? Does he accept that there can be no question of diplomatic niceties being allowed to stand in the way of bringing to justice those who have carried out these outrages?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question in this or in any other case of diplomatic niceties standing in the way of whatever firm action is necessary. It is right and appropriate at this stage for the Government to have taken
706
the steps that we have taken in inviting the Nigerian high commission to enable the police authorities to make the inquiries necessary to clarify the facts before we come to a final decision. I repeat: our position at the end of the day must take account of the matters on which I reported to the House on 25 May.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken the opportunity of consulting the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, in an effort to resolve the difficulties between the United Kingdom and Nigeria through impartial and international channels. In considering the relationships between Britain and Nigeria, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind Mr. Paterson and Mr. Clark, two British gentlemen who have been held in custody without charge in Nigeria for about a month in circumstances which are allegedly concerned with fugitive Nigerian politicians?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly bear in mind the importance of the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, which has been a matter of consideration and representation. There are many ways in which, and many areas about which, I am delighted to consult the Secretary General of the Commonwealth to seek his help and advice. This matter must be regarded as one that arises directly between our two Governments, and that is why we have made the strongest possible representations to the Nigerian Government.
Sir Philip Goodhart: In making up his mind about what to do, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that too many members of the Nigerian high commission staff have a poor record, stretching back over many years, of flouting British laws and conventions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is certainly one matter that I shall bear in mind. I am certain that it would be right to concentrate on the facts arising in connection with this case.
Mr. David Young: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take on board the fact that many of us would defend the right of diplomatic immunity where it is used for the legitimate purposes of an embassy but that another situation arises where diplomatic immunity is used to impinge on the laws of this country? We should make it clear to all embassies, whether within the Commonwealth or without, that the laws of this country must not be impinged on by diplomats who choose to use diplomatic immunity as a justification for carrying their national fights on to the streets of London.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot emphasise too strongly the extent to which I agree with every word said by the hon. Gentleman. It should be emphasised that no one is more affronted by abuses of diplomatic immunity than those diplomats, including our own, who rely upon that immunity for the proper conduct of their affairs and business. A grave matter arises when events take place which represent a violation or disregard of article 41 of the Vienna convention, which states that it is the duty of all persons enjoying privileges and immunities under that convention to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. That is a plain statement of duty and of the highest importance.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Because my right hon. and learned Friend is more aware than most of the fact that

707
Nigeria is prominent in international forums such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth in setting standards for others and condemning them for standards that are not observed, will he take this opportunity of pointing out that the maintenance of high standards of diplomatic behaviour is the very lintel of the Scaean arch of civilisation, and that countries which do not observe those standards have no right to condemn others?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is important for my hon. Friend's point to be made clear, and I am glad to do so.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Are the Nigerian Government still saying to the British Government that the kidnapping had nothing to do with Nigerian people—the Nigerian high commission or any of its officials? If so, what reasons are the Nigerians giving for holding the airliner last week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is right to say, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the Nigerian Government have publicly denied, and continue to deny, any involvement in the affair. No varied or sufficient reason has been given or exists for the holding of that aircraft.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. and learned Friend impressed upon the Nigerian Government how important it is, in the interests of longer-term Anglo-Nigerian relations, that no action of any kind is taken by the Nigerians which might be interpreted as totally unjustifiable intimidation of or retaliation against this country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That point has already been made plain in the context of the detention of the British Caledonian airliner. I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be underlined, and I shall do so.
Mr. David Winnick: There can be no possible excuse for the kind of gangsterism that occurred last week. Recognising the long and honourable tradition of political asylum, which I hope will always continue, is there not a distinction to be made between those who have genuine political reasons to seek asylum and others who may well have been, as in this case, involved in the worst form of state corruption? Will the Foreign Secretary find out from the Home Secretary the basis on which Mr. Dikko was in this country, and for how long he will continue to be here?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that Mr. Dikko was here, and is still here, as a visitor. Political asylum and the rights of others to come to and remain in this country are of great importance. As the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said in a broadcast today, this is not a matter in which one should make changes lightly or without consideration. Clearly, there are important and difficult questions to be considered.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make clear to the Nigerians our great disappointment that this action should occur between the two Commonwealth countries and that, although we understand that this behaviour might have happened with Governments of countries such as Libya and Bulgaria, major concern arises when it happens within the Commonwealth? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider asking all diplomats to submit curriculum vitae before they are accepted with diplomatic status in high commissions and embassies in this country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point, but I suspect that, the world being what it is, it may not make a decisive difference to this important problem. I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole House will regret the fact that this type of incident has arisen in the context of long-standing good relationships.
Mr. John Ryman: Does not this outrage illustrate the need to review the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, because a request for extradition by the Nigerian Government would be futile if it were to be defeated by a claim that the offence was a political one committed in Nigeria? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not consider that the time is right to review urgently the laws relating to extradition?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If I remember correctly, the Fugitive Offenders Act was passed in its present form as recently as 1967. It was then the subject of close consideration by the House in the light of earlier cases which had caused the House and the country some anxiety. I agree that the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Acts deserve to be scrutinised carefully in the light of changing circumstances. They are kept under constant review, but the points raised by the hon. Gentleman w ill have been noted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. David Crouch: When considering the Government's approach to the Nigerian Government, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that problems have arisen in the past between ourselves and the Nigerian Government over assassinations, military takeovers and even a civil war in that country? Even now, with the demise of democracy in that country and a return to military rule, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the long-standing good will which exists between our two peoples?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That point was made in the exchanges in the House on Friday, and has been rightly raised by my hon. Friend again today. It is of course a matter of which we take full account. It is, as I said in my statement, an additional reason why we look for an early and positive response to the request that I have made to the Nigerian high commission.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Has my right hon. and learned Friend asked the Israeli Government for information about their citizens who were involved, bearing in mind that those men were of military age and that their full records would be available? Secondly, would he like to give the Israeli Government an opportunity to assure the world and the House that there is no collusion between Israel and Nigeria in this kidnapping?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know the extent of any inquiries that may be made by the police, but there is no evidence of Israeli Government involvement in this, matter.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is about time that the Foreign Office got its act together and dealt a swift and exemplary blow to the Nigerian Government, whose guilt in this matter is absolutely clear, to make it clear that the vast majority of people do not accept having our streets used as some form of battleground for the settling of foreign vendettas?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no doubt that the House and the nation condemn the use of our streets as a battleground for the vendettas of foreign nations, but I must reject the implication of my hon. Friend's question that this extremely difficult problem affecting our relations with an important Commonwealth country, arising out of the serious offence committed within this country, will be resolved by the Foreign Office "getting its act together". If it were as easy as that we should not be troubling the House today. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the matter will be given the fullest and most proper consideration in the light of the important points that have been made.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Foreign Secretary has told us that Mr. Dikko is here as a visitor. Will he amplify that statement and give us some more background information as to who took the decision and whether he or anyone from the Home Office knew about Mr. Dikko coming as a visitor? Secondly, what conditions were applied to Mr. Dikko's stay here?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The decision would have been taken by the immigration officer dealing with him at his last point of entry. There will have been more than one entry since the change of Government in Nigeria at the end of last year. The conditions would be the same as those attached to any other visitor entering under those circumstances.
Mr. Tony Banks: Six months?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that it is six months.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, much as the whole House condemns this kind of behaviour, one of the matters that must be sorted out is that any country should properly be a home for political refugees? But does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that we must devise a system whereby this and other civilised countries are not a home for those who use political refugeeship as a cover for fraudulent behaviour? If that happens, all these systems lose their credibility.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Anyone who is guilty of fraud in this country will be open to the ordinary criminal law, but, going beyond that, my hon. Friend has raised an important point. There are enormous difficulties in the way of finding a fresh approach.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the people feel some apprehension that if the Nigerian regime were found to be offending in this matter not much would happen? Is he further aware that if not much happens that might very well provide a temptation to other regimes throughout the world
710
to use, or to continue using, British streets for kidnapping and assassination, and that that would be contrary to the wishes of the British people?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Before we reach any conclusion about this case, it is undoubtedly right for us to take the steps necessary to establish the facts. We shall approach the matter in the light of the considerations which I outlined to the House in my statement earlier this year.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Nigerians possibly took their action as a result of the lead given by the Libyans? Even to this day British subjects are incarcerated without trial in that country. It gave the Nigerians the idea of how they could hold this country to ransom, and that is completely unacceptable.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot say what may have prompted the action taken in this case. In his question, my hon. Friend goes beyond the facts so far established. Of course I and the whole House regret the action being taken by the Libyan Government in detaining British citizens without charge. We are continuing to make the strongest possible representations to them through our protecting power in that country.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called today when the next statement is made and give them preference.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to draft statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Home Insulation Grants Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 838) be referred to a Standintg Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

York Minster
4.15 pm
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise me and the House whether it will be possible to have a statement in the House about the tragic fire at York minster and the proposals to refurbish York minster to its former glory at an early opportunity?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter entirely for the Minister involved, and I have received no notification about it.

Sport and Recreation
4.16 pm
Mr. David Ashby: I beg to move,
That this House, whilst recognising the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to both international and national sport, nevertheless considers that greater priority should be given to encouraging people of all ages to participate in sport, recognising and promoting excellence in sport, and co-ordinating the efforts of the various governing bodies of sports; and further considers that in recognising the value of a fit and healthy nation, Her Majesty's Government should actively encourage offices, businesses and factories to include sports facilities and the use of those facilities in the work place.
In choosing the subject of sport and recreation as my subject for the debate this afternoon, I was moved by a number of considerations, not the least being the importance of the subject and the fact that the House has not debated sport since the debate on the White Paper on "Sport and Recreation" on 6 April 1977.
When we pause to consider that every newspaper carries several pages daily on sport; that the television and radio have several hours of sport coverage weekly; that few people do not take an interest in some sport; that even fewer do not have a sporting hero; and that more and more people have increased leisure hours which are either enforced through unemployment or gained through efficiency and higher technology, we realise the importance of sport and the need to debate the subject more than once every seven years.
It is not just this Government and successive Governments who have paid insufficient regard to sport. The House has neglected this major interest of vast numbers of people. Sport is part of the national heritage and culture. We are the nation who gave the world the three major team sports of cricket, football and rugby. When our sporting representatives are successful, the whole country shares in their success, our national morale is uplifted, our world standing improves, and even our businesses feel the benefit. Even the House will feel the benefit of it in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) carries the best wishes of the House with him as he goes to the Olympic games in Los Angeles at the end of the month. The House is proud of him and of all British teams, and we wish them every success.
Many hon. Members will recall our pride when England won the World cup in 1966 or, more recently and closer to my constituency, at the success of Torvill and Dean in the ice-dancing championships this year, or the way in which Ian Botham almost single handedly won the Ashes in 1981.
The benefits of participation in sport are numerous. It brings much needed exercise, which medical research has shown to be essential for a long and healthy life. It encourages competitiveness and achievement, which are necessary for a healthy nation. There has been a phenomenal growth of interest in sport. The House will be pleased to hear that active participation in sport has doubled since 1973.
The statistics for the major sports sound impressive. There are 1,947 clubs that play rugby union, and it is estimated that about 500,000 people participate. In England alone 20,000 cricket clubs play amateur cricket. The Amateur Swimming Association estimates that 300,000 people swim competitively and almost 9 million
712
people swim for fun. There are 2·75 million people who play football at all levels for a registered amateur club, about 40,000 clubs and 92 football league clubs. There are 1,300 athletic clubs with untold numbers of participants. The London marathon attracted 16,992 starters. There are 1,319 men's golf clubs with 490,000 registered members, and 1,165 women's clubs with 91,000 registered members. It looks as though women have a better chance than men of getting on the greens.
Those figures sound impressive until one examines them and becomes aware of two factors. First, those actively involved in sport amount to between 10 and 15 per cent. of the population, of which the lower figure probably represents those who participate regularly. Secondly, there is an imbalance between male and female participation.
We must look first to schools to enthuse children with the desire to participate in sport. Equally it is in schools that individual sporting talents will first surface. I am under the impression that sports education has suffered in the same way as general academic education has. Too often teachers fail to stretch their pupils to achieve their best, and where talent exists it is neither spotted nor nurtured. Schools must bring sporting activities to everyone, but we must ensure that that is not done at the expense of talented individuals. Sadly, many schools make no effort in the pursuit of excellence and as the physical education curriculum expands, standards tend to drop.
It is surprising that the Department of Education and Science has no strategy for sport in schools and no general policy. It is left to individual local education authorities. The Department of Education and Science should have a policy on sport and it should make a thorough reappraisal of sports education, which should include giving greater priority to sport in schools, because our youth is consistently under-achieving.
There should be greater co-operation and co-ordination between schools and sports clubs, and schools and centres of excellence so that enthusiastic children who have developed a love of sport may continue to participate after they have left school and so that talented children have access to real coaching during their school days. Local education authorities should and must be prepared to make a financial contribution towards the coaching of talented children to provide equality of opportunity for all. At the moment it is discretionary within the local education authorities, but they should and must give that help.
The Football Association is worried because many local authorities are disposing of sports grounds that have been declared surplus by schools. If they become built up, that is the end of sports facilities in their areas. An added and worrying feature is that too few local authorities make any real effort to organise the dual use of their facilities to allow the general public increased access to indoor and outdoor school facilities.
Although children may have participated in sport at school, when they leave school their enthusiasm often wanes or ceases. I need hardly reiterate the social value of sporting activities to an unemployed youth or to combating youth crime. That important area was highlighted and discussed more than 20 years ago in the first and less notorious Wolfenden report. It was called the "Wolfenden gap". I am delighted that the Sports Council is taking a major initiative to fill that gap. A major campaign entitled "Ever thought of Sport?", which is specifically aimed at 13 to 24-year-olds, is being launched

713
in the new year. The campaign is to be jointly funded with private industry. That is a sensible move by the Sports Council because private industry can and is more than willing to help in this area. The Sports Council has undertaken a major advertising campaign to encourage young people to participate in sport.
Although I praise the initiative, I wish to give a word of warning: such a campaign cannot exist in isolation. Young people often need a kick in the right direction. As part of the campaign local clubs should be encouraged to go into schools and youth clubs to explain their existence and recruit school leavers. They must act positively. As part of that campaign they should be encouraged to hold open days, and local authorities should participate in advertising those open days. Furthermore, hon. Members can participate in the campaign by talking about it, attending open days of local clubs and generally helping in advertising the events.
The "Ever thought of Sport?" campaign could have another offshoot because our best athletes develop during their late teens. David Hemery, the Olympic hurdler, is writing a book which shows clearly that the greatest achievers are often the late developers.
If we bridge the gap between the school leaver and the young worker we come to the next group to which successive Governments have given little or no thought and certainly no priority. I refer to the fitness and health of our working population. Japan and the United States of America demonstrate the reality of the Latin maxim "Mens sana in corpore sano" which comes from Juvenal's "Satyres". It means, "A healthy mind in a healthy body". In countries where workers in offices and factories are encouraged to take physical exercise and to participate in sport, there is higher productivity, less absenteeism through ill-health and a greater corporate spirit. A fit man is undoubtedly a better worker and, as one would expect, the Japanese are unlikely to miss that trick. Japanese companies are prepared to have sports facilities at work because they are given the financial incentives through tax policies to do so. The Japanese Government are farsighted in this area. We need only consider by how much the national health bill would be reduced and how much more revenue there would be from greater productivity to understand the long-term savings that a fiscal policy that included a sport and recreation input could bring. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), who is an expert on the subject, will have much more to say about this if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please let us have at least a broad strategy for sport in the workplace.
Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend worried, as I and many other hon. Members are, that playing fields belonging to companies are being sold for development in some areas? What influence could the Government bring to bear on those companies to retain those playing fields rather than selling them in highly lucrative development deals?
Mr. Ashby: I take my hon. Friend's point, which is similar to the one that I made about schools. Once those facilities are lost, they are lost for ever. The Government should consider financial incentives to encourage companies not only to create facilities but to retain those that they already have.
714
In the time available I cannot deal with every aspect of sport, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the Government's 50-plus campaign to promote fitness in the aged. It is a welcome attempt to persuade 'the older person to take up sport as part of retirement. The campaign is good, but it needs more direction and impact.
I shall deal now with the pursuit of excellence in international sport and, inevitably, politics in sport. In this Olympic year our thoughts turn to Baron de Coubertin, who saw the Olympics as part of the need to strive for advances in a "spirit of international countries." Sport was seen as a way to break down national barriers and as the typification of an international and universal language. Any challenge to that universal language was taken seriously by Governments. One recalls the enormous controversy over the bodyline bowling in the test matches between England and Australia in 1933. Tension became so great that a cable was sent to the MCC from the Australian board of control stating:
"Body-line bowling has assumed such proportions as to menace the best interests of the game, making protection of the body by the batsman the main consideration. This is causing intensely bitter feeling between the players as well as injury. In our opinion it is unsportsmanlike. Unless stopped at once it is likely to upset the friendly relations existing between Australia and England."
Such feelings have not completely died. More recently a cable was sent from the New Zealand to the Australian Prime Minister after controversy during a one-day cricket match, when Trevor Chappell bowled the last ball of the match underarm to prevent New Zealand from getting the six runs it needed to win.
There is still anxiety about maintaining the sporting ideal, but it is becoming increasingly subordinate to commercial demands and political restraint. Naturally, sport cannot be completely removed from politics, just as politics cannot be completely removed from sport. That fact was clearly acknowledged when the Gleneagles agreement was reached. However, we must not allow sporting interests to be subordinated to political pressures. Politics can run alongside sport, but they cannot run at the expense of sport and should not be allowed to do so. If they are, the cohesion of international sport would be lost and the universal language would be destroyed.
The greatest damage to international sport is undoubtedly caused by the numerous boycotts imposed upon games by outside political pressures. The boycott of South Africa is just the tip of the iceberg. There was a boycott of the 1980 Olympic games in Moscow, and the Soviet reprisal at the coming Olympics in Los Angeles. Boycotts are not new. In 1948 the newly-created state of Israel was banned from competing in the London Olympics because it might have led to a boycott by Arab states. Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands boycotted the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne due to the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the presence of an unrepresentative Hungarian team at those games.
In 1982, 108 British athletes—men such as Allan Lamb and Andy Irvine — were placed on a blacklist because they had sporting links with South Africa. Black countries agreed not to participate in competition with teams that included men on the blacklist. Thus the rebel cricketers who toured South Africa in 1982 were banned. Perhaps more worrying is the rumour that coloured Commonwealth countries have enough votes to ban

715
England from the 1986 Commonwealth games because of those links with South Africa. The idea, though preposterous, is possible.
It is our duty to prevent the universal language of sport from being destroyed by external political factors. Recommendation 4 of the first report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the 1980 Olympic games stated:
"In view of the growing exploitation of the Olympic Games, as a forum for political protest, Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with other interested Governments, should take measures to ensure the long-term future for the Olympic Games in conditions insulated as far as possible from international political controversy and should support an internationally coordinated effort to find a site or sites for the Games which will fulfil this effort."
That seems to be the best way of dealing with the problems of successive Olympic games.
If we stopped competing with all countries that have bad records on human rights, there would be few countries left to compete with. The carrot is a more effective weapon than the stick in encouraging countries to improve their domestic conditions. It is better for those countries, for oppressed people and for sport itself that we should continue the dialogue of sport by playing with those countries.
My motion recognises the Government's contribution to sport, and it would be churlish of me not to pay the highest possible tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. While I was researching for the debate I came to realise increasingly the minefield in which he operates and his great achievements within the limitations and restraints imposed upon him. Those restraints are properly imposed in a democracy, because sports have self-governing bodies and he can try only to influence their decisions. We all want political involvement in sport, but we do not want political interference.
The Minister operates largely through the Sports Council, and I am extremely impressed by the great changes taking place in that body, which I understand he instigated. Under its new director-general there is a more businesslike approach to problems and a real attempt to place its grant money at the sharp end where it counts—in coaching and development, training and international participation.
The problems are horrendous. For example, five different governing bodies in athletics receive grants totalling £55,000, roughly half the amount spent on coaching and development. Cycling costs £93,700 in administration alone, and only £19,700 goes on coaching and development. The list of sports with a number of governing bodies is endless, expenditure on administration is enormous and little goes on coaching development or training.
While we must accept that a grant may be necessary for the administration of a sport, the dissipation of that money among several bodies representing one sport cannot be justified. I know that the Sports Council accepts that and that some major changes in the right direction are taking place.
But we must give credit where it is due. Many of the sports themselves appreciate the administrative problems and the costs that they have raised. For example, the secretary of the Amateur Athletics Association writes:
"We are well aware of our shortcomings in athletics and we are doing our best to rectify them in two or three years, but this is something which has grown over the last 100 years of my Association's existence."
716
While we must change the allocation of the grant, this is a situation which we can all understand.
We are seeing greater rationalisation and attempts commercially to exploit our national sports centres to provide added funding for them as centres of excellence. Two of the centres are partly dependent on local government funding—Crystal Palace is dependent on the Greater London council and Holm Pierrepoint, the boating centre, is dependent on Nottingham council. I understand that when the GLC is abolished the Government will fund the difference. That is no bad thing. We all remember the disgraceful behaviour of the jumped-up chairman of the GLC's recreation committee the other day, and that changeover cannot come soon enough. I echo the words that I used a few moments ago. That is a blatant example of political interference, not political involvement.
In an attempt to find out what is wrong and why we are not achieving as we might expect, I spoke to a number of organisations to which I am greatly indebted for their assistance. Among the answers is a common theme that past Governments have failed adequately to help sports financially and have at times worked against those sports organisations.
The British Olympic Association rightly complains that not only is it almost unique among nations in receiving no funding from the Government, but it is also taxed on its earnings. In the last five years that organisation has paid £375,000 in taxes. The British Olympic Association points out that this is greeted with incredulity by the Olympic associations of other countries, and even the wealthy United States of America Olympic Association has the legend on all its literature
"Your contributions are tax deductible".
It should be a source of national shame that some of our greatest athletes have turned, and are turning, to foreign business men and institutions who enjoy such financial relief for help to achieve honours for this country.
I speak not only of tax relief, because the Government must be aware that the Treasury takes large amounts, directly or indirectly, from sport while returning little. The Football Association has pointed out that as long ago as 1968, in a Government survey by Sir Norman Chester, it was said that by creaming off 25 per cent. tax on football pools without putting some of that money back into football, the Government were making that tax invidious. Since then, the tax has increased to 42·5 per cent., from which the Government get more than £200 million annually.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am sorry to interrupt at this stage, but my hon. Friend will be as anxious as I am, as will the House, to understand precisely what the taxation element is. It is important to know at this stage, because in recent weeks reports have given misleading information that has caused unnecessary concern. I must make it quite clear that voluntary donations, whether from the public or commerce and industry, to the British Olympic Association or any other sports organisation are not liable to corporation tax. Corporation tax is payable only on trading profits, usually from sponsorship deals, sale of goods and income from investment. I am certain that my hon. Friend will want to get this absolutely right.
Mr. Ashby: I am grateful for that clarification, but at a time like this, when the British Olympic Association needs every penny it can get, could it not have tax exemption on its own earnings?
Mr. Richard Holt: I do not think that the Minister's intervention relates to football pools income, which is taxed directly and has nothing to do with corporation tax.
Mr. Ashby: I know that my hon. Friend has an interest in other areas of sports taxation. He is most concerned with the betting levy on horse racing. Some money from that levy is ploughed back into the sport, but that does not happen with football pools.
This goose is laying a very rich egg, which should be preserved and fattened in the interests of both the Treasury and sport.
Mr. Clement Freud: One cannot fatten an egg.
Mr. Ashby: I accept that, but one can fatten the goose so that it lays lots of golden eggs.
Could not the Government put some of the money from football pools into preserving Wembley stadium, our one national football stadium? Seen against the grants given by the Sports Council, these sums of revenue appear very large indeed. The Amateur Athletics Association tells me that we are light years behind Europe in facilities, especially indoor facilities, for athletes and for training purposes. In the whole of the United Kingdom, there are only 87 synthetic tracks, one indoor track and four reasonable indoor training areas. In this regard we even lag behind Finland. The AAA has pointed out that, despite the lack of facilities, athletics can claim to be a successful sport.
With a planned facilities programme nationwide, we are entitled to ask how much more successful we would be in athletics. The AAA points out the obvious when it says that without more Government funding we shall continue to lag behind Europe for many years. With that I wholeheartedly concur.
The Hockey Federation makes the same point. It says that a gap is now developing between the United Kingdom and Europe, especially the Netherlands which has 48 synthetic cover pitches. Germany has 50 such pitches, and even Spain and France have many more than we have. The federation points out that now that hockey is increasingly played on pitches with synthetic covers, we lack the experience of playing on those pitches and, therefore, are at a distinct disadvantage when we play against other countries.
While many of the more popular sports can turn to sponsorship and television for their current expenditure, capital spending on adequate facilities is quite beyond them. This very lack of facilities inhibits the pursuit of excellence or sends our best athletes abroad for their training. Torvill and Dean, for example, are German-trained. Our ice skating success has not been matched by facilities.
Mr. Holt: They are British-trained in Germany.
Mr. Ashby: Yes, I accept that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Every one of our gold medallists in the recent past has trained abroad. This is simply because ice rinks
718
are run by local authorities which look to participation, and therefore the elite cannot get on to the ice until after 11.30 pm to train, and hence they go abroad.
Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that arrangements were made by Manchester council to build a national skating rink with a national school in Manchester precisely for the training of ice skaters? It did not go ahead because the National Skating Association of Great Britain refused to move its headquarters from London to Manchester, and a great opportunity was lost with the consequences that he is rightly outlining. But credit should be given to Manchester, which wished to do it.
Mr. Ashby: I am grateful for that intervention. I was not aware of that. It illustrates some of the fuddy-duddy attitudes of some of the sports organisations. It is very sad to hear that that occurred. It is sad for the sport. It did no service to ice skating if those facts are correct.
If we are to achieve the best from our sportsmen, there must be more political involvement. The British Olympic Association asks for that. It also asks for greater consultation with sporting bodies before political decisions are made. It asks for a greater supportive role from the Government.
The association points to two areas where the Government could be more supportive. The first is in medicine. It says that in comparison with other developed sporting nations, certainly in eastern Europe but also increasingly in western Europe, the United States of America and Australia, the medical support given to top athletes in those and other countries is far and away greater than that which British athletes receive.
The association carried out a survey amongst the 26 governing bodies of Olympic sports, and their needs were clearly defined in three areas. The first is a service which could enable athletes to get back into training and to fitness as quickly as possible after injury. The second is a physiological testing service which would enable athletes and coaches to monitor the training and fitness of athletes over an extended period. The third is a screening which would enable athletes' health to be monitored to ensure that, prior to the exhaustive programme of exercise which athletes undertake, scientific evidence of their physical health could be obtained.
The Government's support in the area of sports medicine is badly needed, and the British Olympic Association would also like a greater sympathy in the National Health Service for the needs and requirements of top sportsmen.
The second area pointed out by the association is in unemployment and social security benefits. Here the association points out that young athletes and competitors not only devote tremendous energy and time to performing at their sports but, in so doing, they jeopardise careers and the very means of earning their livelihood. The DHSS has discretionary powers, and the British Olympic Association would ask that the Government direct the Department to instigate a supportive and sympathetic attitude towards high-level competitors which would obviate many of the problems in this respect.
I also put in the converse plea. I ask that, where individuals or organisations have put a lot of finance into sport, the sporting organisations should be less hostile to, and more sympathetic and understanding of, that person.

719
That is the matter referred to earlier by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about Manchester and the proposed ice skating rink. In respect of this I do not necessarily speak of Mr. Packer's cricket circus, although that comes to mind. I refer to Donington park race track, which was famous in the prewar era.
In the 1960s a Leicester builder named Tom Wheatcroft bought the track to house his museum of motor sport. He also set about renovating, restoring and improving the track. Recently he spent a further £5 million of his own money in bringing the track up to grand prix standards under the auspices of the RAC. Donington park is now one of the finest tracks in the world.
One would have thought that, having brought these incredibly good facilities to the midlands, Tom Wheatcroft would have been thanked heartily and welcomed with open arms by the motor sports world, but not a bit of it. Tom Wheatcroft's request for Donington park to be considered for the British grand prix for racing cars has been allowed, but only for 1988 and only after much debate and a writ. We have to wait five more years for a grand prix in the midlands—I include this year, with the grand prix still to be run—whilst the sport continues to be dominated in the south by Brands Hatch and Silverstone.
If that were the end of the story, Donington park could and would wait. However, if Silverstone and Brands Hatch are to get the major British grand prix for the next five years, Donington park should at least be the venue for the European championship or any second grand prix which may be allocated. I say this because the RAC, a body for which I have the greatest liking and respect, must be not only fair but seen to be fair in the allocation of these major events. At the moment Donington park is not having these secondary events allocated to it, either.
Again I pay tribute 'to the Minister and thank him for his interest, advice and support in my efforts to see that Donington park is treated justly. I shall go on raising the matter until it is treated justly.
Donington park would also like the Auto-Cycle grand prix, the title to which is held by the Auto-Cycle Union. That grand prix is held at Silverstone, and the ACU does not even want to discuss it. These titles are vested in these bodies as a trust by the international organisations. It is their duty to dispense that trust equally and fairly amongst those who have the facilities to run the sports and wish to do so.
It may be financially advantageous to the ACU and certainly to the owners of Silverstone, who must lobby the ACU with considerable success, to have the grand prix there year after year. But it is neither fair nor just to the other tracks which wish to stage the event, and it must be a breach of the ACU's trust as holder of the title to behave in this way. Behaviour of that kind is not good for the various regions, it is not good for the spectators, and it is not good for the sport.
Having put in my local plea, I turn finally to the implications of sport for our export trade. I mentioned that at the beginning of my speech, and I end on it because I feel that it justifies all my pleas for greater Government support and assistance for sport.
Both the British Olympic Association and the Football Association place great importance upon the relationship
720
between sport and exports and have sent me a memorandum on the subject. The Football Association tells me:
"I believe that an area where we still miss out very sadly in this country is our involvement in world football. This may well apply to other sports, but about that I am more uncertain. In football there is no doubt that sending coaches from this country abroad, even for relatively brief spells, and attracting individual coaches from developing countries to attend courses in this country, could have a tremendous influence on substantial purchasing power. I believe that although the Minister for Sport has made certain effort in this direction, far more could be achieved and it would not only confirm our position as the most important country in world football, but would undoubtedly have material effects on our balance of payments. Football is an important sport in this country, but in very many of the 146 countries included in the World Football Federation, it is virtually the only team sport."
Many overseas countries such as West Germany, Korea and the United States use their sporting organisations to develop a network which enables them to benefit from trade opportunities with countries worldwide. The pattern of high-level sportsmen going to countries, developing links, followed by trade delegations and a massive influx of that country's products, is a pattern that one sees repeated time and again, especially in West Germany. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has himself, when leading delegations abroad, placed a great emphasis on selling our sports goods and equipment. However, I am sure that he would agree that in Britain such opportunities tend to be lost for a number of reasons.
The first reason is that our sports goods trade tends to be dissipated among a large number of small companies which seldom combine to afford effective trade opportunities. Secondly, the various Government Departments charged with the task of assisting and developing trade links form a maze of bureaucracy which those involved in the sports trade have difficulty in negotiating. Thirdly, the varied Government Departments which have the opportunities for creating trade with other countries in sports goods and facilities themselves sometimes appear not to be working in harmony. We need a co-ordinated committee to develop that aspect. With the increase of leisure and the increased universality of sophisticated sports facilities and equipment, that aspect could prove vital to Britain's trade prospects.
I have only been able to touch upon some of the many problems facing sport. If I am able to summarise my speech, I say this. Faced with greater leisure, we need greater Government involvement in sport. I hope that I have been able to show that such involvement is clearly cost effective, first, in terms of health. A healthy and vital nation saves National Health Service expenditure and increases productivity and national earnings. Let us have a campaign for doctors to prescribe sport in preference to Valium. Secondly, it is cost effective in terms of revenue raised in taxation from sport either directly or indirectly. Thirdly, it is cost effective in terms of exports. Last, and by no means least, it is cost effective in terms of the national morale. Successive Governments and Parliaments have not given the right priority to sport and they ought to.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): At least nine Back Benchers want to catch my eye before half past 6, when the Front Bench spokesmen are hoping to

721
catch my eye. The debate must finish at 7 o'clock and that leaves 90 minutes for Back Benchers. I think that the House can do the arithmetic.
5.2 pm
Mr. Denis Howell: I usually play 45 minutes each way in my speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, in view of what you have said, I shall try to have a truncated match.
Two aspects of the motion need to be discussed. One is the international purpose of sport and the other is its social purpose. I express the appreciation of everyone here for the opportunity to join in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on having the luck of the draw, and I am grateful to him for his decision to raise this matter. He is right in saying that it has been far too long since the House last discussed sport and had sufficient time to do so instead of relying on the opportunities given at Question Time when a particular incident cropped up from time to time. The fact that such incidents do crop up in many of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned shows that there is an enormous potential political importance about sport today, much greater than in previous years, which, in my experience, as I think the Minister will know, the world outside does not appreciate. A Minister with responsibility for sport cannot occupy that office, dealing with the Foreign Office, the Home Office and various other Departments of State, without wondering from one day to the next what particular catastrophe he will be called to deal with next.
I join the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West in extending good wishes to our Olympic team, as I am sure every hon. Member will wish to do, and certainly to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) who has been selected to cox the British eight. We wish him and his colleagues well when they go to Los Angeles. He had a great and illustrious career in previous Olympics. If he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I hope he will, he will be the first Member for a long time who will proceed directly from speaking on sport in the House to representing the country. That is a considerable distinction that we are pleased to acknowledge.
There is enormous interest throughout the world in the great festivals of sport, whether they be the Olympic games, the Commonwealth games, the World cup, European competitions, and so on. That is not sufficiently well understood. Many hon. Members are absent today because they probably regard sport as a frivolous pursuit for the House of Commons. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sport captures the imagination of the country and, indeed, the world. It is in international sport alone that the people of the world come together.
If one visits the Olympic village and sees there people from 140 nations living together — the youth of the world—for six weeks, competing against each other and developing friendly relationships, one understands what international sport is about. Sportsmen are entitled to reflect that in no other sphere — business, commerce, education or the arts—do we provide the opportunity for the youth of the world to come together and to live as one. That is the contribution that sport makes to international understanding—the understanding of humankind—which is not made anywhere else. That is the significance of this debate, and we need more such debates. The only other
722
time that that happens in the Commonwealth is when Commonwealth Prime Ministers come together or during the Commonwealth games. If we begin to understand that, we begin to understand the role of sport in the world.
I notice that the Football Association has recently said that it wants to attract back one of the European competitions—the European Nations cup. I hope that the Minister, who understands the importance of international sport, will be able to say that any approach from the Football Association along those lines will be sympathetically considered by the Government.
One immediately thinks of the next great international sporting festival to be held in Britain — the Commonwealth games at Edinburgh in 1986. As I understand it, the Government are not making any resources available to Edinburgh this year compared with what was made available for the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh 1970. I can understand that much was built for the 1970 games, but I hope that the Government will give as much financial assistance as they can, especially for the much needed cycling velladrome. If the Minister does not know the answer to that now, will he consider with the Commonwealth Games Council of Scotland and the Edinburgh district council the need to ensure that they have a cycle velladrome for the 1986 games so that that event, like athletics, swimming, boxing and so on, can be properly held?
The Commonwealth games in Edinburgh have a question mark over them because of the statements made by other countries about possible boycotts arising from the behaviour of South Africa. It is important to say this year as well as any other—I said this in 1980—that boycotts of international sporting festivals are unjustified. That is true, for the reasons that we attacked Her Majesty's Government in 1980 for the boycott of the Moscow Olympics. I say it now because those of us who attacked the Government then have an obligation today to say that we are equally opposed to the boycott of the Los Angeles games by the Russians or anyone else, such as the African countries.
When the Commonwealth Prime Ministers last met, I was encouraged by the fact that they put out a pronouncement that seemed to suggest that they accepted that international sporting boycotts were not the way to deal with the South African problem. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take an initiative, which may be necessary, to talk to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers about the threats that have now been made. During the period of the Olympics, the future of the next Commonwealth games will be decided. I hope that the Prime Minister will remind her colleagues throughout the Commonwealth of the stand that they took when they met in Australia and of the fact that it is important, if the Commonwealth means anything at all, for Commonwealth nations to come together in Edinburgh in 1986.
I understand the South African problem, and I do not intend to spend too much time on it today. South Africa is unique in that it has discrimination among sportsmen on the ground of colour alone—
Mr. John Carlisle: No, it does not.
Mr. Howell: I am afraid that it does. I know that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will speak later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman must remember that it is not Governments

723
who have put South Africa out of international sport, but the sporting bodies themselves. It started with the Olympic committee, went on to FIFA in football, then to cricket, and it has gone from one international body to another. The reason is simple. It is offensive to any genuine international governing body to have half or two thirds of its members discriminated against by a member country. For that reason, the sporting bodies have banned South Africa from international competitions.
Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the opposition to South Africa is because, as it says in the Gleneagles agreement, there should be no discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin—a policy that the right hon. Gentleman supports. Can he name one sport in South Africa in which selection is based on apartheid and race, colour or ethnic origin?
Mr. Howell: It is not necessary for me to do that. When I was Minister with responsibility for sport, I laid down five or six principles that I said South Africa had to meet before it could return to international sport. Such things as the pass laws and discrimination make it impossible for large numbers of ordinary South Africans to join clubs to get the coaching and the participation that they need. That discrimination at the grass roots of sport prevents natural talent coming to the top. These facts have to be taken into account.
I do not wish to pursue this subject too far, but the hon. Member for Luton, North knows that when the rugby press correspondents last went to South Africa they were greeted with a speech by the South African Minister of Justice in which he made it crystal clear that in no circumstances would South Africa change its laws to allow equality for all sportsmen. One pays tribute to correspondents, such as Clem Thomas, who wrote articles saying that they went hoping to see these great changes that had supposedly taken place, but came back devastated by that speech. Those are the facts of the matter.
The point is that South Africa is using astronomical sums of money to bribe sportsmen from various sports to go to play in that country. Sums of as much as £70,000 a time are being offered to sportsmen to go to play in South Africa, but they must know full well that their presence in South Africa undermines the livelihoods of fellow professionals there. That shows why sport takes such a serious view of the problem.
I pay tribute to the Cricket Council—which said that if it allowed the so-called rebels to go to play in South Africa, that would undermine the livelihoods of other professional cricketers on the circuit. The council was standing up for sport as a whole, which is important. As I have said outside the House, if the Rugby Football Union were truly international in its governing and had representatives with power, the countries which play rugby would be taking the same decisions as FIFA and the IOC have been forced to take.
I come now to another subject, on which I hope I shall get more agreement from the hon. Member for Luton, North. I have the temerity to draw attention to my report on sports sponsorship and its international implications. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, who served under my chairmanship for two years, for his considerable assistance. We looked at many problems. You will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not go through all the recommendations, but I must ask the Minister
724
whether the Government have had an opportunity to form conclusions on the recommendations that we addressed to them, particularly those that affect the multinational sports organisations now operating in international sport.
My committee was extremely concerned about what we called the conflicts of interest and the interlocking financial arrangements that were not properly disclosed to the governing bodies of sport. Some of these we mentioned and went into in detail—in particular, Adidas and the International Management Group of Mr. Mark McCormack. Our concern was not that any one of these activities by these organisations was wrong. It is obvious that Adidas and IMG do much good for their clients. Otherwise, clients would not go to them. They raise the standards of international sport and improve the benefits to sportsmen, which is an advantage.
However, in our report we point out the problems with the IMG and its involvement with Wimbledon and the British open golf championship. Mr. McCormack represents nearly all the top players taking part in the events, the governing bodies that are staging the events, the marketing interests, and the governing bodies in negotiations with television authorities in this country. He is also involved in international television negotiations and is linked with the presentation of sport here and how it is sold abroad. He represents other interests as well, including, sometimes, the commentators on televised events.
It seemed to the committee that there must be a conflict of interests in all that and that it was wrong for one man or one organisation to represent so many different interests in some of our great sports. The committee did not have the power to send for people and papers or to do the sort of full investigation that it would like to have done. We gave Mr. McCormack the opportunity to appear before us, but he did not avail himself of that opportunity. Mr. Dassler of Adidas did appear before us and gave us answers that are mentioned in the report. I do not agree with that company's policy, but I pay tribute to Mr. Dassler for appearing before us at a lengthy session. Mr. McCormack did not feel able to do that.
The committee found that there was a case for an investigation to be conducted by the Government into all those interlocking interests. At the very least, all those interests between various companies ought to be disclosed so that the international governing bodies know what is going on. I hope that the Minister agrees with that and will refer the matter to the Office of Fair Trading.
The importance of the issue has been highlighted in the past week by articles in The Guardian and the Daily Mail. The BBC has offered £9 million to televise athletics over the next few years and the IBA has offered £10 million. A legitimate discussion is taking place in athletics about whether the quality of the BBC's uninterrupted coverage, with no advertisements, is the right approach or whether the sport should take the extra £1 million. That is a matter for the sport to decide.
However, I understand that if the IBA gets the contract, Mr. McCormack will offer £4 million to carry out the packaging and all the advertising. That is a serious situation. We shall see at Los Angeles a foretaste of what might happen. It is said that, because Governments no longer impose restrictions on sponsors advertising during the events that they sponsor, people such as Mr. McCormack will buy up all the advertising time before, during and after the events. In the newspaper articles to

725
which I referred, he says that not only does he want to have his athletes running in the events, but he wants to organise the sponsorship and the advertising on television before, during and after those events. That ought to be unacceptable to the House. It is against the public interest to have one man or one organisation with such power. The sports bodies should be careful to maintain their independence at all times and not to have the finances of their sports removed from their control. I am glad to see the Minister showing some agreement and I hope that he supports my views.
The main thrust of the motion is the social purpose of the sport. I am disappointed at the Minister's attitude to appointments to sporting bodies. When I had his job, I went out of my way to make appointments from a broad spectrum. I was disappointed when the two vice chairmen of the Sports Council, Mr. John Disley and Mr. Bernard Atha, were removed by the Minister. That was wrong. It seems that we are not maintaining a general political balance. Mr. Disley is one of the few people left in sports politics who understand what the relationship ought to be between the Government, the Sports Council and sporting bodies. I attached the greatest importance to getting that right, and things have gone wrong because that balance has been lost.
For example, I am pursuing the reasons for the enforced resignation of the director of the Sports Council, Mr. Emlyn Jones, who, according to the chairman of the Sports Council, was required to resign by the Minister. The Minister denies that, and we do not know what is the truth. The chairman says one thing and the Minister says another. It is known that Mr. Jones was required to resign. There should not have been such interference.
Even worse, the new vice chairman of the Sports Council is a leading Conservative councillor, whom I first appointed to the council in my pursuit of balance. Having got rid of Mr. Jones, the Government then got rid of the deputy director, Mr. John Coghlan. At a stroke, the two principal executive officers of the Sports Council were removed by one form of political interference or another. That was wrong and regrettable.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to the Opposition Front Bench. I know that he takes a great interest in sport, which is welcomed by all the sports organisations and certainly by me. I hope that he will pursue with the Government the financing of local authority facilities now that the GLC and the metropolitan counties are to be abolished. I have a list of 43 undertakings being financed by those councils. We want an assurance from the Minister that the money that those authorities were providing will be provided by the Government.
I gather that the Sports Council has estimated that £5 million is needed for work at Crystal palace, but the Central Council of Physical Recreation estimates that at least three times that sum will be required in all. Whoever is right, I hope that the money will be forthcoming to ensure—
Mr. Tony Banks: May I underline that point? I understand that the Sports Council is talking about an extra £5 million from the Department of the Environment to cover everything, including the GLC's current contribution to the Crystal Palace national
726
sports centre and the contributions of the GLC and the metropolitan counties to sport generally. Compared with the money that those authorities are spending, the estimate of £5 million is woefully inadequate.
Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right, and I should correct a figure that I gave earlier. The CCPR estimate is £18 million.
If we had been debating arts today, there would be three times as many hon. Members present. The arts grant is £101·9 million, but the Sports Council grant is only £30 million. I think that that gives us an idea of the lack of balance on this aspect of the matter.
Sport for all, for the unemployed and for youth, is vital. I cannot understand how the Government fail to appreciate the importance of sport to the large numbers of unemployed. This month in my constituency between 80 and 90 per cent. of those leaving school in a multiracial area are going straight into unemployment, to join 50 per cent. of last years' school leavers and 40 per cent. from the year before. They have time on their hands, and there are no resources available to them. Yet the Government are urging that playing fields should be sold.
A year or two ago, the Minister announced a joint study of these matters by his Department and the Department of Education and Science. That study seems to have sunk without trace. What was the result? Can the Minister assure us that the Government understand the vital social importance of sports provision, especially in areas of growing unemployment, such as the inner cities? It is desperately important that sports facilities and coaches should be provided. The Government must understand the social purpose and the philosophy of sport.
This subject embraces political opinion on both sides of the House. We understand the social importance of sport and want to see it provided for. If facilties are not provided for the youth of our country—especially the growing number of unemployed young people—the cost to the country as a whole will be great.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North West for providing the opportunity for me to make this speech.
5.34 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), although I shall not at this point pursue his controversial remarks on South Africa. I shall merely put it on record that he has himself said that all the five points that he put to the South African authorities and the Progressive Federal party had been met. That being so, I fail to see how he can continue to take that line.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his long and detailed study of sponsorship in sport, to which the House and the Government must pay attention. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and wish him well in Los Angeles later this month. I thank both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend for an excellent report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) was sensible to take the good advice of his many friends that this subject should be aired. It is true that we do not talk about sport enough here. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if I do not entirely follow the views expressed in his motion. As he himself says, we need more Government involvement in sport and

727
less interference. I suspect that if we followed my hon. Friend's policy to the letter and the line, there would inevitably be an enlargement of the responsible Department and more involvement by the Treasury, and perhaps a feeling in national and local government that there was interference from above.
The Conservative party is a party which stands on its own feet, and I fully support the words in the motion about encouraging companies to give their employees more facilities. That would help to create a healthy nation. That is probably the better part of the motion, which we are most grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down.
I cast no aspersions on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in saying that the position of Minister with responsibility for sport is one that is always in question on the Conservative Benches. Thank heavens, the Minister at present responsible for sport has acquitted himself admirably throughout his term of office.
I should like to concentrate on international sport. I believe that heavy political influence is being brought to bear on sports selection throughout the world. It may be ironic that this debate should take place just before the Olympic games. The last major debate in the House on sport —here here I must correct my hon. Friend—was in January 1980, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath reminded us. The Prime Minister then put forward a motion justifying the Government's opinion that our athletes should not go to Moscow. On that occasion, as a fairly new and green Member, I supported my right hon. Friend in the Lobby. That was an action which I now bitterly regret. I was totally wrong to support the Government, and the Government themselves were quite wrong in penalising sportsmen because of the political distaste which we all shared for the Russian involvement in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, on that occasion, as so often, the sportsmen were pitched to make clear the wrath of our political masters. I believe that the Government's action led directly to the tit-for-tat in which the Russians and the Eastern Europeans have now boycotted the games in Los Angeles, probably reducing those games—apart from rowing—to a second-class spectacle, to the sadness of everyone in this country and throughout the world.
What is particularly sad is that youngsters from behind the iron curtain have been denied the opportunity to visit a free nation and mix with young sportsmen and sportswomen—as our young sportsmen were denied the opportunity to visit Moscow. They have been denied an opportunity to swap ideas and to gain some idea of how the other half lives — to share different cultural and political opinions.
That is the tragedy of Los Angeles. Western sportsmen would have had an opportunity to influence the Russians and Eastern Europeans, showing them the freedom which we in the West enjoy. The House and the Government agree that contact on the field is an effective way of spreading our diplomatic favours in a peaceful situation rather than in the cold world of diplomacy. We have lost an opportunity—as we did at the Moscow Olympics—for our ambassadors of sport to spread our gospel and to break down the barriers between our two countries.
The heavy political influence on selection in international terms is the more to be regretted because of recent events. I should not be so naive as to suggest that sport and politics do not mix. This is a complicated question. As my hon. Friend the Member for
728
Leicestershire, North-West said, the Government have a duty to involve themselves, but not to interfere. It is our job to begin to dismantle the political barriers which, regrettably, now exist in sport and not—as we have done by our adherence to the Gleneagles agreement—to support those barriers.
I do not want to dwell on the question of the Gleneagles agreement, but there are one or two points which I should like to make. We should not forget that the "Commonwealth Statement on Apartheid in Sport", to give it its full title, was not ratified by this House. The Government of the day never sought the approval of the House of Commons. It was never ratified by the sportsmen. As far as I know—although the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, who was in office when the agreement was signed, may be able to correct me—no sportsmen were consulted. The agreement was never ratified by the British people. It has had a devastating effect on some sportsmen, both here and in South Africa.
My views and my opposition to the agreement are well known to my hon. Friend and to the House. My hon. Friend understands that my views are shared by many hon. Members, as is evidenced by an early-day motion which has been signed by 108 Conservative Members. It expresses support for the English Rugby Football Union's visit to South Africa. It has been shown in successive opinion polls that never less than 70 per cent. of the public find the Gleneagles agreement abhorrent. I understand the circumstances of my hon. Friend and the Government in regard to that agreement, but I hope that it will be amended.
One of the Minister's first loves is cricket. Indeed, he excels at the game. Like many others, I am sure that he will have found watching the English side being decimated in two test matches harrowing. We must ask ourselves whether the matches are fair. Fairness is one of the hallmarks of British sportsmanship. Is it fair that four or five—some people believe it is more—players of great ability are forced by the rules of international cricket, and, indirectly, by Government influence, to stand aside while our test side suffers humiliation? The men who went to South Africa in 1981 did so perfectly legitimately, as do thousands of British business men each year, to pursue their trade and to be paid accordingly. They broke no law, but were penalised for going. When people cry "Foul" about that, they have every reason to do so.
The decision was made by the Test and County Cricket Board. The International Cricket Conference went to South Africa in 1979 and after an extensive visit, recommended that an ICC team be sent to South Africa to see whether the conditions which the right hon. Member for Small Heath described with eloquence, but, if I may say so, with ignorance, exist. It went to see whether organisation is based on race, colour or ethnic origin. The ICC found that those conditions, as set out in the Gleneagles agreement, did not apply and that therefore an ICC team should be sent. Players were banned by the Test and County Cricket Board for three years. Principal among the prosecutors on the ICC and influencing the Test and County Cricket Board were none other than the West Indian board of control and the Indian board of control.
Mr. Macfarlane: I apologise for interrupting during this important element of my hon. Friend's speech, but in the interests of accuracy the House should examine closely what he has just said. I understand that the

729
recommendations which my hon. Friend has mentioned were not voted on by the whole ICC. The House would find it strange to think that Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Caribbean islands and India would send representatives to South Africa. It is true that some representatives of the ICC went on a fact-finding tour and then reported. That tour was not wholly sponsored by the ICC, nor was it ratified. My hon. Friend will be the first to realise, bearing in mind the realism that he deploys on these occasions, that that would be very unlikely.
Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. The full ICC was not represented on the visit, but it had the blessing and the official title of the ICC. The strange thing is that the report was never published. It is still at Lords gathering dust. One can only surmise that it was never made public because the ICC was not entirely happy with its conclusions. The West Indian board of control strongly objected to players who went to South Africa. Indeed, it suffered from that later. The direct result is that the English XI has been weakened and that selection of our national team has been influenced by another cricketing authority. That has shades of Mr. Vorster who, in 1968, refused to accept Basil d'Oliveira. He had some influence on the Marylebone Cricket Club selectors at the time. The wheel has come full circle.
I should be out of order if I were to say that the Test and County Cricket Board's decision was influenced in some small way by the Government and their adherence to the Gleneagles agreement. I take the point that the right hon. Member for Small Heath made, and which my hon. Friend the Minister often makes, that the original bannings of South Africa were made by the sports authorities. Since then, however, the goal posts have been moved—not by the sportsmen or the sports authorities, but by politicians. Sportsmen and sports administrators are now hog-tied by an agreement over which they have little influence and which they did not approve.
A topical item has come to my notice and should be brought to the attention of the House. It concerns the 1985 Whitbread round-the-world yacht race. A joint services yacht had been entered. Unfortunately, a grant of £290,000 towards the 1 million costs which was promised by the Ministry of Defence has been withdrawn because the yacht was to have called in at Cape Town, as will all of the others. I shall quote the Government's view as expressed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 29 June:
"A service entry in the round-the-world yacht race would be incompatible with the Government's policy on links with South Africa since it would involve a stopover in Capetown for service men on duty and would carry the unavoidable risk of competing with South African entries, thereby contravening the Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport"— [Official Report, 29 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 556.]
The yacht would be going round the world in an international competition. Cape Town is just one of the places where the yachts will stop to be refurbished, where crews might be changed and where provisions will be taken on board. It is disgraceful that, because of one stop and a petty-minded decision, the young men and women involved will be denied a wonderful opportunity. In no way does the stop contravene the Gleneagles agreement, as the competition is not a direct one between Britain and South Africa. I hope that my right hon. Friend the
730
Secretary of State for Defence will reconsider his decision. It is ironic that, only last December, 180 personnel who were employed by independent contractors but who were working for the British Government passed through Cape Town and Johannesburg on their way to the Falkland Islands. If their stopping in South Africa was acceptable, I see no reason why the yacht should not stop there. The grant should be reinstated.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend believe that Commonwealth Governments should together change the Gleneagles agreement, or does he go further and say that if they do not Britain should pay no further attention to it?
Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has great perception, for I was about to turn to that issue. Perhaps the time has come for the Government to take the initiative and to try to bring some influence to bear on the Commonwealth. Everyone knows that the Government are tied by the Gleneagles agreement, which was honourably signed and which has been honourably supported by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. However, the time has come for some adjustment to be made to the agreement.
It has been recognised in the House that selection in South Africa is not now based on race, colour or ethnic origin. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West said, South Africa should be given the carrot rather than the stick. Some recognition should be given to those brave sportsmen, sportswomen and sport administrators in South Africa who have tried desperately within the laws of their land to select their teams by means of a process that is not based on race, colour or ethnic origin. That must not be forgotten.
My hon. Friend the Minister will understand that boycotts and sanctions are now beginning to inflict real harm upon those in South Africa who were intended to benefit from them. I have found a somewhat strange ally in a former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who, in "Politics of Consent", writes:
"To begin with discard all hypocrisy and double standards. However repressive the South African regime, it is no more repressive than dozens of other regimes from the Soviet Union downwards. This fact does not excuse South Africa but it is reason enough not to make her the sole inmate of an isolation war. The habit of doing so is both intellectually and morally dishonest … We should either boycott all nations or none of them. I can see no point in empty moral gestures … I regret the imposition of sporting and cultural boycotts, as I do not believe in shutting down human contact, but the exertion of influence by economic and political contacts is a legitimate tactic."
My right hon. Friend was Foreign Secretary until very recently, but there has been movement in South Africa, with a visit here by Mr. P. W. Botha, and it seems that the Government have a somewhat warmer approach to South Africa. When my hon. Friend has talks and negotiations with the various sporting bodies, both international and national, I ask him, in all sincerity, to try to find a chink of light in the present rather sad situation and to bring hope to many thousands of sportsmen.
5.53 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: The arithmetic of the debate when it was thrown open to the House was that the nine of us who wanted to contribute to it would each have 10 minutes. The seven of us who

731
remain are now left with less than six minutes each. That is our allocation if we are to be honourable. I shall do my best to abide more closely to time than those who have preceded me.
Mine will be a rather more domestic and mundane view of the motion than that taken by others. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on introducing it. I have the impression that it seeks to deal with participation and co-ordination between sporting bodies and the encouragement of businesses to provide sporting facilities. We at Westminster are involved with and employ about 3,000 people, and yet we have no sports facilities except a rather tatty gymnasium with a sauna bath in Norman Shaw, North. We have no football pitches, sports grounds, facilities, swimming pools, squash courts or tennis courts. I am not sure whether we have any right to speak about the provision of sporting facilities.
It seems that we have a national philosophy that it is not nice to try to win. Our children are always encouraged to participate in sport but no great prize is given for achievement. We are beaten by the South Africans at rugby football and we do miserably at cricket. There are those who say that they do not know what will happen when the next test match begins. I know what will happen; we shall do as miserably as we did in the previous two tests.
We do not have one man in the tennis top 20 and no woman in the top 10. I pay great tribute to Mr. John Lloyd and congratulate him on his success. I would hate to be the only person not to wish well the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). I hope that he returns with at least nine medals. Even at bowls we lose to Hong Kong and at football we cannot beat the Danes.
In our pursuit of excellence, we must try to create an infrastructure that enables even younger people than at present to involve themselves in competitive sport as they do in the United States, where a child of eight years on the east coast will occasionally have competed in swimming, for example, with children of the same age on the other side of the country. I remind the House that that is a very much larger country than the United Kingdom and that its national sporting events are much harder to organise than ours.
We have more per capita injuries in sport than in any other civilised nation. One of the reasons is that we keep our medical achievements, which in some instances are considerable, very much closer to factional interests than other countries. In boxing, for example, we have one or two experts who are brilliant at dealing with cuts. Those experts do not teach others. On the contrary, they want to keep their skills a secret so that the other man will bleed while their man recovers. We have certain football trainers who are excellent at dealing with knee injuries and others who are competent at handling other forms of footballing injuries. The Government should encourage these experts to share their knowledge.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West wants more money directed to sport or more Government interference. When I asked the Prime Minister to provide more funds for the Open University, she accused Opposition Members of trying always to get the Government to spend more money and of then complaining about taxation.
It would be right for the Government to take the view that sport is related to health. The concept of the National
732
Health Service was triggered when medical officers examined those who had volunteered for the Boer War. They found that few volunteers were medically fit. That is when the nation began to take an interest in the health of the citizen. It is on that ground that I ask the Minister to consider the cost effectiveness of funding sport.
Greyhound racing is a viable sport and yet there is extraordinary elitism within it. Some tracks are licensed by the National Greyhound Racing Council and many are not. There are the most admirable flapping tracks in my constituency but if anyone runs his dogs on those tracks they are not allowed to run under the same name on other tracks. I suppose that that is an example of apartheid. The NGRC has a monopoly in knackermeat and the trainers in my constituency who train on flapping tracks cannot buy horsemeat or sub-quality meat for their dogs merely because the tracks are not licensed.
I have spoken for only a few minutes, but I shall do the honourable thing and resume my place so that others may participate in the debate.
5.59 pm
Mr. Colin Moynihan: It can be argued that the international sporting world is heading for a crisis. The motion refers to at least six areas of sport whose futures are beset by major problems. At its worst, the Olympic movement heads remorselessly from boycott to boycott. We have moved from de Coubertin's early idealism to the power of multi-million dollar deals, from amateurism to shamateurism and from well trained competitors to the laboratory race to produce drug perfected automatons. Furthermore, international participation at any level increasingly becomes the product of political decisions. Our debate has already concentrated on the Gleneagles agreement, on whose gossamer clauses the success or shambles of the 1986 British-hosted Commonwealth games hangs delicately in the balance.
In national sport, limited financial support leaves promising recreational schemes on the drawing board, while the internal politics of sport often make this House tame by comparison.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) called our attention to governing bodies. Here we find men of outstanding ability and commitment who in our generation have held together —and promoted—the sportsmen of today. But they, regrettably, are few in number. For every Sir Arthur Gold or the late Sir Denis Follows there are 20 members of governing bodies who have never been to see their Olympic hopefuls in training. The generation gap is nowhere more evident than here.
The pressures on today's athletes are a far cry from what they were 15 years ago; so much greater is the need for them to have the support and understanding of those who serve them — and serve them they should — on governing bodies, for it is the sports men and women who come first. Those who have the honour to serve them would do well to remember that without them their own role holds no relevance. It is to that issue and to the promotion, marketing and development of sport at its grass roots that those people should be committing themselves in looking to the future.
We need more young people on our governing bodies. Men and women who will retire after this year's Olympics should be urged to participate at the top level of sports administration: in fact, there is a duty on them so to do.

733
The world of sport has given much to them in personal satisfaction and support, and the least they can do, having received so much, is to give a little back. Tomorrow's stars and today's participants, especially at the grass roots, and, above all, the governing bodies will then benefit.
I have already had the privilege in an Adjournment debate of drawing attention to the drug abuse in sport. The excellent Sports Council initiative has moved forward a stage since then. Its new code does much to stamp out that form of cheating in sport. My regret is over the failure of some governing bodies to have acted urgently with the commitment to find new punishments to fit that sporting crime.
An independent court of appeal, guided by the International Olympic Committee and governing body's lists of banned substances, and sitting under the aegis of the Sports Council's drug abuse advisory group, is essential. Then a ban for life, and nothing less, for the guilty should be imposed.
I have had the honour of being a steward of the British Boxing Board of Control since I came down from university. My comments on boxing, interventions aside, should take five minutes and 27 seconds, which would keep me on target for a gold medal in Los Angeles and a new Olympic record. More important than anything, I might find favour with those hon. Members who still wish to speak.
I have seen the standards of medical supervision in professional boxing move forward dramatically. Boxing in Britain leads the world in assessing, maintaining and developing standards of medical control. It is we, the British, who introduced the universal boxing passport two years ago, now carried by all boxers under the aegis of the World Boxing Council and containing specific medical and boxing records. It is we who have sought to improve the state of boxers' fitness and the degree of medical control.
Every boxer has an annual medical examination. Every boxer is seen by the board's medical officers. Every boxer is examined at the weigh-in, prior to going into the ring, and after the fight, win or lose. Every boxer who loses inside the distance is automatically suspended for 28 days and must then pass a full medical examination. Every fight has two doctors at the ringside, and CT scans are now often used. That is not the world of yesterday's boxing booths. Furthermore, despite the considerable powers of the press —and television fees—the BBBC puts the interests of the boxer first.
John Conteh was pulled out of a world title fight by the board. Charlie Magri's Zambian opponent in a Commonwealth title fight recently was withdrawn even after the weigh-in, and despite Zambian medical clearance and television's wishes to the contrary. Leading boxers have been retired — Vernon Solas and Jackie Turpin come to mind.
Yet the British Medical Association made its decision after an emotive speech to its 1982 conference by Dr. Butten, who had never seen a boxing match nor produced any relevant statistics. The report emanating from the conference found boxing guilty and challenged the sport there and then to prove its innocence—a staggering way to proceed in this country. Therefore, it came as no surprise that the board did not participate in the report. The board's history of willingness in assisting in investigations
734
has been proved on many occasions, not least with the Robertson report for the Royal College of Physicians. The report on reaction time and the BB isoenzyme report are two current examples of the board's assistance. Nothing in the BMA report addressed itself to British professional boxing today.
The sad reality is that many sports are dangerous. Between 1969 and 1981, 480 people died in sport, according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Among the 480 were two professional boxers and three amateurs. Does the BMA want to ban all sports where danger exists? What of mountaineering, horse riding, football and rugby, where in each case the figures for deaths are higher? Indeed, what of smoking and drinking? Yet all involved in boxing should welcome this second-rate report, for one reason alone: it focuses our attention on the continual need to improve our medical standards. This British boxing has done and will continue to do.
Abolition will drive boxers abroad. I remember well the lightweight Williams, who failed our eyesight tests, gained a licence to box in Belgium, and is now back here with poor vision, having suffered a detached retina. Yet all those matters are secondary in this House to freedom of choice. Unlike compulsory seat belts, banning boxing is like banning the motor car. With enhanced medical control, we have already voluntarily put on our seat belts. As long as the boxing world strengthens its controls in the interests of boxers, this widely popular sport should go from strength to strength.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry to spoil my hon. Friend's record for brevity. I warmly endorse his remarks on boxing. Perhaps he would agree that it would be sad to move on without mentioning the admirable role played by amateur boxing as a social function, particularly in deprived areas. It is a wonderful way of keeping young people out of trouble and channelling their aggressive instincts into worthwhile sporting ends.
Mr. Moynihan: I wholly endorse my hon. Friend's intervention. If it were not for the excellent control—not least the excellent medical control—of the amateur sport of boxing, we would not have the professional sport that we have today. It is a sport that does a great deal, especially today, to encourage youngsters who lack direction to come into the boys' clubs countrywide and to be assisted in developing strength, determination and personal courage. Amateur boxing has given great assistance which should be recognised throughout this House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point
In the next few weeks many people will be able to witness our Olympic achievements. As they do, I hope that they will find time to reflect on the need for vision and enlightened thinking for the future of the International Olympic Committee and the Olympic games, for it is in the hands of those on the IOC that the future of the games lies. The prospect for 1988 in Seoul looks bleak.
In my view, possibly the only successful future for the games lies in the establishment of a permanent site, run and policed by the International Olympic Committee, financed out of the vast income of television fees, and established by all nations along the lines of the Vatican model. That idea must be examined further, at the very least. Greece comes immediately to mind, for historical

735
reasons. Finland comes to mind for its great staging of the 1983 world athletics championships, and because of its position as a window to the east and west. Both countries should be strong candidates for consideration.
With a permanent site should then come open games, to get rid of the hypocrisy that now exists in regard to payment of athletes. An IOC charity, as the due recipient of the millions of dollars received during the games—and particularly through television—could support sport and recreation schemes world-wide, along the lines of a sporting international development association. Perhaps de Coubertin's ideals can find a new forum in a very different and fast-changing world, perhaps not, but the onus is on the shoulder of each member of the International Olympic Committee to look forward and to save what has been, unfortunately, an otherwise sadly backward-looking movement for international participation in sport. The two consecutive boycotts have done much damage to the Olympic movement.
I should like to record my deep appreciation of the support that I have received from colleagues on both sides of the House in the debate and outside, as well as for the hundreds of supporting letters from constituents. They already know the feeling of sport and politics mixed, as the previous Conservative Member of Parliament for my seat was Mr. Christopher Chataway, a sportsman who is far more capable and far better than I shall ever be. I take those letters and gestures of goodwill not as support for me but for all our athletes who are heading for Los Angeles. My humble and sincere thanks to all of them.
6.10 pm
Mr. John Forrester: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on choosing this subject for debate, and wish the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) good luck at Los Angeles. The speakers have dealt with a wide range of topics, but I shall contain my remarks to four or five points and deal with them briefly in view of the time.
Everyone now accepts that, at a time of increased leisure, more facilities are needed, if only because Satan finds work for idle hands or, in the perhaps better words of the motion, there is great virtue in having a fit and healthy nation. Everyone agrees that there is a chronic shortage of facilities for sport and recreation and that successive Governments have failed to meet that need. At times it seems that deficiencies in services are not necessarily noticed, but there comes a time in history when that shortage can no longer be ignored. The time for improving our sporting facilities has come upon us. The key to solving the problem is finance. Because of the Government's restrictions and rate-capping proposals, many local authorities are very cautious about starting capital projects which may lead them into revenue problems and penalties.
I shall raise a constituency point which illustrates the problem of many older cities. Stoke-on-Trent had five public baths. In recent years we had to demolish four of them, because of old age or mining subsidence, or a mixture of both. The remaining pool ought to be demolished. We have replaced them with only one modern public baths and a pool especially for the disabled, for which a large amount of money was raised by public
736
subscription and effort. Clearly, a new baths is desperately needed. We also have a chronic shortage of indoor dry sports facilities.
Stoke-on-Trent has been very fortunate in the amount of money that it has received from successive Governments for land reclamation. I pay tribute to them for that. But much of the reclaimed land is unsuitable for hard wearing sports use, because of its poor quality.
Like many other cities, Stoke-on-Trent has failed to achieve inner city area status, although we know not why. We, too, have the problems of the older industrial cities. Cities like ours have been denied funds by which we could have renewed or upgraded our facilities. The other source of income may be the Sports Council, but, of course, it is short of money. It does not have enough money to go round; certainly not enough to do what it knows must be done. If we are to make real progress in the provision of sporting and recreational facilities, money needs to be found from somewhere and local authorities have to be confident that they will not incur penalties.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West referred in his speech, as the motion does, to the need for encouragement of businesses to provide facilties. I wholeheartedly support that. There are many good facilities at the moment, but, as has been mentioned, many firms face financial constraints and must make savings in non-profitable sectors. Some of them have gone out of business.
It would be a tragedy if those workplace sporting facilities were lost to the community. I understand that the Sports Council is investigating the possibility of joint use schemes with public bodies. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will encourage them—I see that he is nodding agreement—as that will be a way of saving the existing facilities and encouraging firms to create more, for the good of us all.
Another area that is giving cause for concern is that of facilities in schools that are listed for closure because of falling rolls or reorganisation. If those sites were sold and the facilities lost to the community, I am sure the Minister will agree that that would be a grievous loss. It is clearly a national problem and I hope that the Minister will encourage a national solution. I accept that not all school facilities are used to their fullest extent after schools have closed. We should encourage that sort of use, but the trend seems to be for county councils to close down facilities to save money and not offend those who ask them to make cuts.
I have always been a firm believer in encouraging excellence in sport and extending our facilities to produce more stars. Anyone who comes home with a medal for any of the sporting activities encourages more spectators to watch his particular sport and encourages the younger generation to take part and to emulate him. If we are to breed champions—this is essential in sport—we must use the stars of today and give them the facilities. The standards that have been achieved could be maintained and enhanced for the future. Success breeds success. It adds to national pride and satisfaction. The desire for victory continues and the poeple want to feel that they are a part of it.
I shall now deal briefly with the subject of hooliganism, which besmirches the football scene particularly. We would be missing the point if we thought that hooliganism was entirely the result of unemployment. The problem was there in the more affluent days before the recession. I say

737
to the Minister that, if there is evidence that political groups are using these events to practise their evil creed, we should take even stronger measures to deal with the problem.
Many clubs have done what they can to segregate rival supporters and to shepherd them to and from the stations. I can never understand why it is considered sensible to have alcohol on sale inside football grounds. I wonder whether we should adopt the Scottish experiment of banning alcohol from grounds, and from coaches and trains going to and coming from matches. There is no doubt that it is a serious problem. Banning alcohol sales may be just one of the ways in which we can tackle it.
We must look to the future. The Minister has, I believe, been made aware of a scheme that was put forward by Councillor Doug Brown in Stoke-on-Trent. To explain it briefly to hon. Members, the scheme is called "Match Mates" and involves competitions or matches between schools close to the times when two football league teams meet. Matches are arranged in the town where the league match is taking place, and are between teams from several schools. Lunch is arranged for the children by their parents or teachers. They are given tickets to watch the football match in the afternoon.
The intention is to teach youngsters that competition and friendly rivalry in sport does not necessarily have to involve violence on or off the field. The idea has received tremendous support from leading football clubs, local authorities and business people who have sponsored various events. However, the scheme needs a regular source of income. I believe that it is worthy of Government support. If it is a success, that will not be evident for some time. I hope that the Minister will give the scheme his full support—
Mr. Macfarlane: I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have written to me about that and are coming to see me to discuss it.
Mr. Forrester: I am grateful for that. I hope that the Minister will give the scheme his full support and encouragement.
6.20 pm
Mr. Jim Spicer: I shall follow your advice, Mr. Speaker, and be as brief as possible.
I should like to declare my interest, first as chairman of the company Fitness for Industry, which, in the words of that old television advertisement, is "probably" the best company in this field in the country. Secondly, I am a member of the South West Regional Council for Sport and Recreation. Thirdly, I am the chairman, secretary and general dogsbody of the "rather tatty gymnasium with a sauna bath", referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). I reject that description absolutely.
I noticed that the hon. Gentleman dwelt on the word "sauna" with a sinister implication. We would offer him a fair and free assessement in our gymnasium. I promise him that it would be the hardest afternoon's workout that he has ever had. I hope that he will take advantage of that kind offer. At the same time, I pay a great tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who played such a major part in helping us to get that gymnasium off the ground seven or eight years ago.
738
My particular interest in all those three differing fields is based on the absolute fact that prevention is not only better than cure, but cheaper in terms of cost, both to the individual and to the state. Activists in sport pose no problem, but they comprise only about 10 per cent. of the population. The other 90 per cent. are a problem. How do we encourage them? How do we get them off their backsides and doing something positive outside instead of sitting and feeling that they are participating by watching sport on television?
With regard to fitness and sport, at the top end of the scale there is absolutely no problem. Schemes are run and financed by the British United Provident Association and other companies. In the House we have an excellent medical practitioner who tells us, "Look out. You are a stone overweight. Take some exercise and watch your diet, otherwise you will be in trouble." However, for the great mass of people such provisions are not available. Too often, the first time that people go to see a doctor he will say something like this, "What a pity. If only you had come to me a year or 18 months ago, we might have been able to do something about it, but sadly it is too late now and I am afraid that you will have to live with the consequences of failing to take advice." But that advice was never given because those people could not afford to take it. The interest is there, but sadly there is no provision.
The Minister will know that last year we ran an experiment in Bournemouth over five weekends with the Health Education Council and the Sports Council. It was a great success—500 people took part and most came back some three months later, having taken advice both on diet and exercise. It is a great pity that the Health Education Council could not afford to follow that up. It is now left to private companies such as BUPA to go out into the field with their teams, go round the factories and do fitness checks on a smaller scale than the major ones, taking 20 or 25 minutes. However, at least those companies are reaching a wider audience.
I refer further to the role of private companies. Mention has been made of company sports fields. We should recognise as fact that there is a changing pattern of provision of and need for sporting facilities. Some 25 years ago most companies worked a five-and-a-half-day week. At 12 o'clock on a Saturday the company would close and, if employees wished, they could go to a sports ground which had been provided by the company and participate in sport for the afternoon. It was a perfectly normal thing for them to do. Round London and in the major towns these "old style" sports grounds exist in great numbers, but because of the changing pattern of involvement they have become white elephants and are not required in the same way.
Such grounds represent valuable real estate for companies and shareholders. I do not share the view that it is incumbent upon private companies just to stay in the business of keeping sports grounds open, when no one else is prepared to back them up. There can be no blame on companies if they try to obtain planning permission for those grounds. However, what we really need is a major campaign to advise on possible alternatives to straight building development. I know that the Minister is dealing with that. I hope that the matter will be given greater urgency in future, because unless action is taken we shall lose valuable sports sites to building.

739
We want much greater joint usage by the general public and company employees, with positive financial input from both the Sports Council and private companies. The business expansion scheme could provide a tremendous amount of capital for grounds that fall within that category.
Massive sporting and recreational facilities are administered within the public sector. In many cases joint usage is working well and increasing year by year. Most local authorities make the point all the time that they are firmly behind that policy of joint usage. They want school playing field facilities to be used at the weekends. However, the trouble is that that is not always followed up by the headmaster or headmistress of the school, who tend to look upon school playing fields as their personal domain and do not want the general public spoiling it at the weekends. There are problems in joint usage, such as supervision at weekends and holidays, but progress could be made and there could be greater usage if the will existed.
I return to my starting point that prevention is better than cure. So much could be done to lower the incidence not only of heart disease but of many other sicknesses directly related to unfitness. More people need to be made aware that physical fitness is not just an end in itself, but brings in its train a more rewarding and happier life. That is our task. We have seen how it can be done in the United States and how we could cut back on the incidence of heart disease. Let us follow through on the lines indicated by the Minister.
My final word is to the Minister. I thank him, on behalf of all of us who are involved in sport in any shape or form, for the work that he is doing overseas. If we are to obtain greater recognition for sport in this country, we must show those who are not very interested that there is an export market for people who train overseas students and for our sporting gear. My hon. Friend has done a great job. I ask him to keep it up.
6.28 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: I have been squeezed out of the debate once again. I remember speaking on this subject some years ago. The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), spoke for a long time. The trouble is that he speaks so much sense that one has to forgive him, but because he speaks for such a long time many people are squeezed out of such debates. I shall be brief, as I do not wish to cut the time available to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on introducing this subject for debate, because he has done the House a great service. In the 14 years that I have been a Member, there have been only 15 debates on this subject—most because of Back-Bench initiative. There have been 10 Adjournment debates, three debates during Government time, one debate during an Opposition Supply day and one private Member's motion in 1970. I hope that the business managers will recognise the importance of this subject and give more time, especially to Back Benchers, to make contributions on this important issue. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland.
6.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on giving us the opportunity to debate issues that are important to millions of people—the participants and spectators who enjoy sport so much. The hon. Gentleman cited statistics on sport and participation. He might have said also that about 11 per cent. of all television time is taken up with the presentation of sport. The hon. Gentleman was right to stress the need for the House to face these issues more frequently. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West complained that the Department of Education and Science has no strategy for sport. I believe that he said also that the same was true of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment. It is important to make the point that, if we are to look more thoroughly at the way in which we approach sport policy, it should be done on an independent departmental basis. Clearly, Government Departments have a role to play. I wish the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and his colleagues well in representing Britain in the Olympic games in Los Angeles.
Mr. Tony Banks: I have not had the opportunity to add my felicitations to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). I am sure that my hon. Friend will extend his good wishes also to Mr. Ken Livingstone's secretary, Sue Bailey, who will be the cox on the women's boat.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that young lady. The Opposition wish all the British participants well in Los Angeles.
One of Britain's significant contributions to the world has been organised sport — its invention and the codification of the rules of many sports. Many people—this disappointment has been reflected in the debate—recognise that all is not well in many of our sports. It is a matter of record that Britain is falling behind many other nations in terms of performance in team and individual sports. One of the reasons for that is the fact that other countries have a far more systematic approach to what might be described as a national leisure policy. Britain is possibly the only major industrialised country that does riot have such an approach to sport and recreation.
The 1984 Henley centre report, which made a number of forecasts and a valuable contribution to debate on the se issues and the patterns of leisure, predicted that greater demands would be placed on sport and leisure facilities because of longer annual holidays, a shorter working week, earlier retirement, more part-time working and, inevitably, but importantly, a high and apparently permament level of unemployment. The report predicted that there would be a significant increase in active outdoor pursuits and indoor sports. Spending by individuals on leisure activities accounts for 27 per cent. of consumer spending, which is equivalent to almost 8 per cent. of GNP, or £36 billion per annum. That demand and expenditure seem set to grow.
I shall examine briefly how the Opposition think the Government are coping with sport and what the Government should be doing to produce better performances in sport recreation. I echo the continents made by a number of participants in the debate that it is

741
wrong for educational sports facilities to be sold in present circumstances. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, should have introduced the circular outlining such sales when he was Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I regret the fact that the Government and the Prime Minister saw fit to downgrade the job of Minister for Sport when they took office in 1979. I should prefer to see the hon. Gentleman as a Minister of State.
I emphasise the need for joint action across Government Departments to achieve better co-ordination in sports policy. In the past few years, there has been a decline in public expenditure in general and a serious decrease in the Sports Council's capital spending programme. That is regrettable. In addition, the Government have presided over a cut in expenditure on sport and recreation by local authorities. It is clear that the proposals to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county councils and the legislation on the Rates Act have serious implications for spending by local authorities. It has been pointed out that the Government spend far more on the arts than on sport. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give a clear answer on what will take the place of spending by the GLC and metropolitan county councils on this aspect of policy if they are abolished as a result of Government legislation.
The Government have so far failed to answer increasing public demand for a national indoor sports centre and the facilities necessary for ice skating and other sports. In too many sports, there is a lack of facilities for our young people, athletes and sportsmen and sportswomen to enable them to undertake the practice and training that are necessary to match the standards of our competitors.
We await with impatience as well as interest the Government's response to the serious problem of football hooliganism. When I raised the issue of violence in Brussels a few weeks ago with the Under-Secretary of State, we were promised a report. I pointed out that there were clear signs of political involvement by the National Front. Regrettably, that has been confirmed by activities associated with the English football team during its recent tour of South America. The Opposition regard those as disturbing matters and call for the Government's response.
One of the most widely enjoyed sports and recreations and one that has millions of participants—I am involved in it—is angling, which I believe should be taken more seriously. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 could be used in a number of ways to improve facilities for anglers. I believe that there should be more access to waterways, not only for anglers but for those who use the lakes and ponds and participate in water sports.
Surely the example set by a number of local authorities —for example, Nottingham's sponsorship of Torvill and Dean, the development by Gateshead metropolitan borough of the Gateshead stadium, and its support for Brendan Foster which produced the massive response to athletics on Tyneside which led, ultimately, to the success of Steve Cram, and the GLC's support of the Crystal Palace — shows how well we can do things given the determination and the resources.
Mr. John Golding: Will my hon. Friend put to the Government that we want a national angling licence? We want to get away from the present regional system.
Dr. Cunningham: I am sure that the Minister has heard what my hon. Friend said.
The Gleneagles agreement has come to the fore in a number of speeches. I refute the arguments advanced at considerable length by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who supported the South African Government's desperate attempts to obtain respectability in international sport. It is worth reminding the House that sports bodies decided to isolate South Africa, and we endorse what the Prime Minister said a few months ago in New Delhi about the importance of the Gleneagles agreement for the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will assure the House again tonight that it is the Government's intention to ensure that the spirit and the letter of the agreement are upheld by the Government. That was the declaration to which the Prime Minister put her signature in New Delhi.
The Prime Minister's attitude on that issue contrasts markedly with the approach that she took, and which the hon. Member for Luton, North said he supported at the time, to the boycott of the Moscow olympiad in 1980. I agree that that boycott has led to the tit-for-tat response by the Soviet bloc, which I regret and deplore, towards the Los Angeles olympiad.
I believe that we need to do much more for coaching. Can we say that the majority of children, including children from the black and ethnic communities in the inner cities and the conurbations, have adequate opportunities to participate in and have coaching and training for sport? Many have no opportunity to participate.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said about sponsorship in sport. Unlike him, I should include the role of the cigarette companies. We should study the disturbing developments there. Is it not time—
Mr. John Carlisle: What disturbing developments?
Dr. Cunningham: The persistent and growing association of cigarette smoking and the sponsorship of sport. I call that disturbing.
Is it not time that we examined sport and taxation so that the major spectator sports can plan for the future? Could not amateur sports be given a special status to protect them from VAT or corporation tax? Special grants or rate relief could be given to genuinely open, community-based sports clubs. A new and clearer defintion of rights of access to water, which I mentioned, and to the countryside, in keeping with the increasing demand for outdoor pursuits and leisure activities, should be considered.
The 1980 Government-inspired Olympic boycott, the sale of community sports grounds, the turning of a blind eye towards South African involvement in British sport, and the failure so far to deal adequately with hooliganism and violence in sport, are a wide range of important issues that I have tried to cover quickly because I want to leave the Minister as much time as I can to reply. I do not apologise for raising those issues, and the threat to existing levels of sport which results from the Government's policies towards local councils.

743
The leisure industries as a whole have a record of expansion in participation, spending and numbers employed. Sport and recreation have increased employment by 76 per cent. since the 1960s. A national leisure policy encompassing the arts, sport and some element of tourism seems worth serious consideration. There need to be Government structural changes to cope with that and a properly managed local government investment plan to extend facilities.
I say with some feeling, coming from and representing a constituency in the north, that far too much of what happens in sport and recreation takes place in London or the metropolitan area. We should devolve more away from the capital. Recently a senior executive of the Sports Council said:
"Government policy is simply 20 years behind society, the leisure society has arrived without being properly announced or recognised."
We hope that the Government will begin to recognise some of these issues and act accordingly.
6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): This has been a most constructive and wide-ranging debate. I echo the sentiments expressed by many hon. Members by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on introducing a topic which, as we all agree, does not always receive as much time as we should like.
It is clear that I shall not be able to reply to every point that hon. Members have made, but I hope they will understand that I shall write to them as quickly as possible on the many points that have been made.
It is interesting to note that my hon. Friend suggested that the last time we had a debate on the subject was in 1974, but the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), who is most diligent in these matters, initiated a debate on leisure in 1980. On that earlier occasion my predecessor and hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) brought to the attention of the House the Government's awareness and interest in the needs of sport and recreation at a time when leisure was increasing. The intervening years have seen that interest translated into continued and positive action.
I also join those many hon. Members who congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyniham) who will be winging his way towards the west coast of America as a member of the British Olympic team. I wish him and, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, everyone who is participating—including the GLC leader's secretary—well.
I should like to take the opportunity to point out that many people who will be going to the Olympic games will have received funds from the Sports Aid Foundation. I should like to pay tribute not just to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who set it up in the mid-1970s, but to Paul Zetter, who has done that thankless but rewarding task for over eight years.
The Government have fully accepted the importance of sport and recreation in today's society. The wording of the motion on the Order Paper echoes the sentiments of what we are trying to do. We have accepted and defended the independence of sport and the governing bodies. As hon. Members have said, unlike Governments in some
744
countries, we do not seek to dominate the governing bodies of sport. Our task is with and through the Sports Council. We aim to foster and encourage the provision of opportunities for active recreation for all our people; to assist in the development of individual talent; and to protect the freedom of sport and sports people to develop within the context of their own aspirations.
We must also encourage the expansion of the many companies that provide essential facilities, equipment and services for sport. The sports industry is becoming a major growth industry, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged. It is providing a growing number of jobs and rapidly expanding overseas markets. That is why I have led a number of delegations to the middle east, and should like to do so elsewhere if I had more time.
There is undoubtedly enormous potential for the construction industry, for all-weather pitches, coaching schemes and the selling of software. It is refreshing to note, from the recent trip that I made, that it is clear that our reputation is still held supreme in many countries.
The Government have the Sports Council as their agency to fulfil many objectives. The Sports Council was created by royal charter in the early 1970s under a Conservative Government. The charter embodies, protects and defines the council's independence. I ask the council, as my Department's agency, to undertake particular tasks or policies. For example, my initiatives to seek more community use of existing sports facilities in the private and public sectors are being carried forward by the Sports Council. At my request it carried out an investigation into the losses of recreational land. It concluded that local authorities were in the main positive about preserving recreational land, and that the overall gains for sport and recreation were greater than the losses. The nine regional councils for sport and recreation are monitoring this and will report to me as necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) mentioned the important element that the companies of yesteryear provided acres of sports facilities for their employees. Perhaps nowadays those facilities are not in such great demand. Many people may prefer to join other clubs or to go to some of our 800 leisure centres. I have written to the chairmen of the 100 top companies and nationalised industries and asked them to identify the amount of sporting facilities that they have and to find out how we can increase usage. I am pleased to report that at least 80 of them wrote back positively. The Sports Council is pursuing the matter both centrally and locally. It is a most important dimension. Our sole purpose is to encourage more and more facilities to be brought into greater public use—to make the most and best of what we have.
Mr. Freud: Did the Minister write to the Leader of the House on that matter, and, if he did, what answer did he receive?
Mr. Macfarlane: No, I have not written to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on that matter.
I asked the Sports Council to look at the organisation of athletics. As the right hon. Member for Small Heath will know from his previous responsibility for sport, there are 19 governing bodies of athletics, not five. The Sports Council examimed their role and organisation. Again, it is the arm's length principle. It is clear that Ministers

745
cannot corral or tell governing bodies what to do. We must ensure that athletic associations understand their problems and get the best value for money. I hope that all those responsible for organising athletics will make a concerted effort to become one unified body.
The Sports Council is independent, and makes its own decisions on how grant-in-aid is spent. It has funded, grant-aided or loaned money for not far short of 1,000 projects in the last financial year. However, like any other agency involved in Government policy, some important policy matters are properly handled by me and my Department. Two examples have already been given.
If the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) had not been charitable enough to sit down after two and a half minutes he, as chairman of the all-party football committee, would have majored on the subject of football hooliganism. The Government attach the utmost importance to the matter. A wretched minority-1 per cent. — are spoiling a great national game. Some so-called supporters who travel abroad are a nuisance and have nothing to do with football. They are a menace. The report that I promised the House some weeks ago will soon be to hand. It has also involved the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department of Transport. I took the matter to the Council of Ministers and early this year got ratification for a united approach throughout Europe on the importance of co-ordination, segregation in grounds, ticket distribution and the implementation of the European Football Association rules. We hope that the collaboration and co-operation of all those involved will continue 100 per cent. That is why, whenever there are major matches, my officials or I will meet the chairmen of the clubs or the chairmen of the Football Association and Football League and discuss the matter.
Last year I wrote to the 92 professional clubs with the full approval of the former member for Nottingham, East, Mr. Dunnett, president of the Football League, outlining a blueprint. In 1981, I set up a liaison group. The liaison group has met six times in the past two years. We have chaired the meetings jointly with the Football Association. That liaison group continues to exist. As I said, the liaison group was set up in 1981 after three countries in the United Kingdom qualified for the World cup, and it has been successful.
The Government are totally committed to the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport. That commitment was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi, for the third time in six years. Our obligations under the agreement are to seek to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa and to withhold any form of support for such contacts. Only Governments can breach that statement. We believe that we meet our obligations. We also met our obligations over the Rugby Football Union tour of South Africa. We discouraged and tried to dissuade the sportsmen, but we could not prevent them from going. The right hon. Member for Small Heath will understand the background to that. We live in a free society, and, rightly, the decision was ultimately for the RFU. However, it went against out strong advice.
I am deeply anxious about the future of Commonwealth sport. Many countries view it with misgiving. We shall
746
know more about that within the next few weeks as the Commonwealth Games Federation meets to consider the problem.
My Department's work with the Sports Council is regular and frequent. We work closely on strategy and policies, and we advise each other. The Sports Council grant-aids the Central Council of Physical Recreation. That voluntary co-ordinating body does a tremendous job for sport and has a very good history. The Sports Council also supports, to the tune of £5 million, the governing bodies of sport. My officials and the Sports Council are always ready to advise and assist them where we can. There are now 140 governing bodies compared with about 25 some 30 years ago. We provide sport with an open door to the Government and a wider perspective than could be enjoyed by individual bodies or even sport as a whole.
Since 1980 we have doubled the Sports Council's grant to £30 million. Through the urban programme there has been additional support of £20 million, and £3 million has come from derelict land grants. We are now a nation of participators. We were a nation of spectators 25 years ago. Our sole objective is to ensure that there is a good stock of facilities. The Gateshead development is important and underlines the fact that if one encourages local authorities and governing bodies, and if the Government and private sector can join hands to provide pump priming, it can lead to centres of excellence and to a huge increase in success for the region. I stand full square with the right hon. Member for Small Heath when he says that it is important to have a sensible balance of provision throughout the country. I hope he will agree that money must be spent evenly and fairly throughout the country by us, the governing bodies and the regional councils.
I turn to a point which worries many people, and on which the right hon. Gentleman in his excellent report on sponsorship through the Central Council of Physical Recreation touched. Other Departments are also interested in that report, but I cannot tell him when we shall have completed our analysis of it.
We are trying to discover whether we can provide more money for sport. We have just seen a successful fortnight of tennis at Wimbledon. John Lloyd was perhaps our only success, for the second year, and I congratulate him.
Many people are dismayed at the amount of prize money in tennis and other games. They are dismayed at the amount of prize money being offered at the elite end of the games. I have already had a meeting with 10 or 12 major sponsors of sport acting as a catalyst to ensure that a percentage of the money that they put into sport goes to the grass roots.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) does not seem to agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath about sponsorship by the drinks and tobacco companies. The right hon. Gentleman negotiated the voluntary tobacco agreement in the mid-1970s, which I updated recently. Many companies are providing a lot of money, but not enough of it reaches the grass roots. It is from there that the champions of the next decade will come. I have obtained some agreement from the chairmen of several companies, which will refresh those parts of the country which have not always been reached in recent years. I hope that it will produce several thousands of pounds for the regions, will be validated by the governing bodies of sport, and will go into those sports where we need success.

747
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) was right to say that success breeds success. Britain is perhaps among the top three or four countries in athletics. Our athletes have won many gold medals during the past 10 or 15 years, and more and more will come. Many successful athletes have come from the north-east and the west midlands. The success of Swedish and Czechoslovak tennis in recent years is due to the fact that both countries have produced Wimbledon champions during the past decade.
I hope that we can provide increasing funds because we must improve facilities. The key is also to provide money to voluntary organisations, not just put money into the development of vast leisure centres and swimming pools. We have 800 leisure centres and about 900 swimming pools. I want more schemes to be developed, harnessing the voluntary sector, the Manpower Services Commission and the local authorities to find out what we need. The pound-for-pound schemes have been a huge success in Merseyside, Bristol and the north-east. What we have heard today echoes the Government's devotion to sport and recreation as major activities.
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings thereon lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of Public Business).

Orders of the Day
  Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 2

  FRAUDULENTLY RECEIVING CERTAIN PROGRAMMES
  ' .—(1) A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a service to which this section applies with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of that programme shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
  (2) This section and section (Proprietary rights in respect of certain programmes) below apply to—

  (a) any cable programme service;

  (b) any television or sound broadcasting service provided by the BBC or the IBA; and

  (c) any service (other than a television or sound broadcasting service) which consists wholly or mainly in the sending, by means of a telecommunication system, of sounds or visual images or both and is provided for a person providing a service falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above;

  and for the purposes of this subsection a service provided for the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor shall be treated as provided for the IBA.
  (3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision, in the case of any country specified in the Order, for applying this section and section (Proprietary rights in respect of certain programmes) below to—

  (a) any service provided in that country which would be a cable programme service if subsection (7) of section 2 above and references in subsection (1) of that section to the United Kingdom were omitted;

  (b) any television or sound broadcasting service provided in that country by an organisation constituted in, or under the laws of, that country; and

  (c) any service provided in that country (other than a television or sound broadcasting service) which consists wholly or mainly in the sending, by means of a telecommunication system, of sounds or visual images or both and is provided for a person providing a service falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.

  (4) Her Majesty shall not make an Order in Council under subsection (3) above in the case of any country unless Her Majesty is satisfied that provision has been or will be made under the laws of that country whereby adequate protection will be given to persons making charges for programmes included in services falling within subsection (2) above.
  (5) Any statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 3.
  Mr. Hurd: The two new clauses deal with the problem of theft. Those who are taking a large commercial risk in offering new services to the public should have the reassurance that a solid legal framework exists within which they can try to ensure that people cannot enjoy the benefits of their services without paying for them. When we came to consider the existing safeguards that were available to the providers of pay television services, we discovered that in the case of cable they were only partial,

  749
  and in the case of satellites almost non-existent. That is why my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave a commitment in another place on 2 February that during the passage of the Bill the Government would introduce proposals designed to forestall the growth of cable and satellite piracy. I am sorry that it has taken rather longer than we hoped, but it is a remarkably difficult legal problem.
  New clauses 2 and 3 attempt to deal with those sorts of dishonest activities which the Theft Act 1968 and the Copyright Act 1956 do not cover. We considered whether we could build on the existing law, but we decided that the straightforward thing to do would be to create two new free-standing provisions in the Bill, one to extend the criminal law and the other to extend the civil law. New clause 2 creates a new criminal offence and establishes the scope of the services to which both the offence and the civil provisions in new clause 3 apply.
  New clause 3 contains the more far-reaching provisions which are especially important if we are to succeed in heading off this new piracy before it becomes established. Experience in other areas suggests that it is essential to have effective powers which the courts can use against the suppliers and distributors before the material gets into the hands of the ultimate user. Criminal sanctions are not the best answer, because enforcement takes time and normally deals with unlawful activity that has already happened. Alongside the criminal provision in new clause 2, this new clause provides a comprehensive set of remedies available to an aggrieved broadcaster or cable operator in the civil courts. Where someone imports, sells or lets apparatus that is designed to defraud the aggrieved broadcaster or cable operator of payment for his services, or publishes information that is intended for that purpose, the aggrieved person can seek an injunction, damages and any other appropriate relief from the civil courts.
  The new clauses and the amendments which flow from them introduce a set of safeguards which will enable the providers of pay services to combat the theft which could fatally undermine their business.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I support the new clause, but I take this opportunity to tell the Minister that all these amendments should not appear at the Report stage of such a Bill. As I said in Committee, the Bill now before the House is completely different from the one that was debated on Second Reading. Indeed, it is Bill No. 4, 5 or 6. We now have authorities for cable and authorities for DBS. The lives of all the independent television companies have been extended without proper safeguards for the public interest. Clause 47 provides a new national radio network, although that has not been explained to the House in detail. Now on Report we have two entire pages of amendments. Altogether, the Government made 200 amendments to the Bill, and few hon. Members will have experience of a Bill being so completely changed during its passage through the House.
  In addition, the Bill might be a complete charade, because since the Home Secretary introduced his proposals for cable and DBS the Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed the capital allowances on which the cable companies had made their calculations. The result is that they are reconsidering their position. It is doubtful whether
  750
  these provisions will see the light of day or whether they will be financially viable. I hope that the Minister will say something about that later.
  I have protested about the number of amendments to the Bill. The House should not have been treated like this by the Government. However, I support the new clause and, with a view to getting through all the amendments in a reasonable time, I shall not duplicate what the Minister said.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

  PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROGRAMMES
  . — (1) Every person who makes charges for the reception of programmes included in a service to which this section applies shall be entitled to the proprietary rights conferred by this section.
  (2) The rights conferred by this section are infringed by the manufacture, importation, sale or letting on hire of any apparatus or device which is designed or adapted, or the publication of any information which is calculated, to enable or assist persons to receive the programmes without payment.
  (3) Subject to subsection (5) below, infringements of the rights conferred by this section on any person shall be actionable at the suit of that person; and in any proceedings for such an infringement all such relief, by way of damages, injunction, interdict, account or otherwise, shall be available as is available in any corresponding proceedings in respect of infringements of other proprietary rights.
  (4) Where rights conferred by this section on any person have been infringed by the manufacture, importation, sale or letting on hire of any apparatus or device, then, subject to subsection
  (5) below, that person shall be entitled in respect of the conversion by any other person of the apparatus or device to all such relief, by way of an order for its delivery or otherwise, as he would be entitled to if he were its owner and had been its owner since the time of the infringement.
  (5) A person shall not be entitled to recover damages from another person by virtue of this section if, at the time of the infringement or conversion, that other person was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the rights conferred by this section on the first-mentioned person would be or had been infringed.
  (6) Section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and section 94A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (withdrawal of privilege against incrimination of self or spouse in certain proceedings) shall each have effect as if the proceedings to which subsection (1) of that section applies included proceedings in the High Court brought by virtue of this section.
  (7) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the conversion by any person of any apparatus or device there shall be substituted a reference to an intromission by any person with any apparatus or device. '.—[Mr. Hurd.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

  OFFENCES BY BODIES CORPORATE
  .—(1) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Act and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
  (2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.'. —[Mr. Hurd.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 5 and Government amendments Nos. 1, 5, 18A, 23, 34, 92 to 99, 139, 142, 143, 145, 146, 156, 159, 167, 173, 181, 183, and 184.
  Mr. Hurd: In response to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), I entirely concede that the House is confronted with many Government new clauses and amendments. To a large extent, although not completely, this is a result of discussions in another place and in Committee, and I shall illustrate that point as I go through the Government's proposals.
  The amendments and new clauses under discussion stem from a debate in the other place, where it was legitimately pointed out that there were gaps in the existing law, which did not cover the theft of cable and satellite services. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that I have done my best to keep him and other interested Members as fully informed as I could of the progress on this issue, but I accept that there are some indigestible morsels here.
  Mr. Denis Howell: None of my criticisms was personally directed at the Minister, who in Committee was as helpful as he could be—indeed, he still is—but I am sure he appreciates my point of principle: that it is wrong to extend one Bill into three or four Bills in the manner adopted by the Government.
  Mr. Hurd: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  These new clauses and amendments flow directly from the new clauses which the House has just approved, which straddle the cable and DBS provisions in the Bill. As a result, they will appear in part III. That necessitates the rearrangement of other parts of the Bill. The new clause and amendments which we are now discussing introduce no further new policy. They are simply consequential on the theft arrangements which the House has just approved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

  GENERAL INTERPRETATION
  '(1) Unless the contrary intention appears, expressions used in this Act which are also used in the 1981 Act have the same meanings as in that Act.
  In this Act and, unless the contrary intention appears, in any enactment amended by this Act—

  "the 1956 Act" means the Copyright Act 1956;

  "the 1981 Act" means the Broadcasting Act 1981;

  "the 1984 Act" means the Telecommunications Act 1984;

  "cable programme service" has the meaning given by section 2(1) above;

  "the IBA's subsidiary" means the subsidiary mentioned in section 12(2) of the 1981 Act;

  "licensable cable programme service" has the same meaning as "licensable service" has in Part I of this Act; "licensed", in relation to a cable programme service, means licensed under section 4 above;

  "programme", in relation to a cable programme service, includes any item included in that service;

  "standard scale" has the meaning given by section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982;

  "statutory maximum" has the meaning given by section 74 of that Act;

  752

  "telecommunications service" and "telecommunications system" have the same meanings as in the 1984 Act.' —[Mr. Hurd.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

  DIRECTIONS IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING
  '.—(1) This section applies where —

  (a) the broadcasts in a television or sound broadcasting service are made from a place outside the United Kingdom for reception in the United Kingdom; and

  (b) programmes are proposed to be broadcast in that service by the reception and retransmission (whether immediately or after an interval) of material sent by means of a telecommunication system licensed under Part II of the 1984 Act.

  (2) if it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with both broadcasting authorities, that it is requisite or expedient to do so in the interests of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, he may by a direction under this section prohibit any person from sending material either for programmes generally, for programmes of a particular description or for particular programmes.
  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State may give a direction under this section if it appears to him, after such consultation as aforesaid, that any of the programmes—

  (a) would consist of or include the whole or any part of listed or protected events; or

  (b) would be such that they could not be included in a television or sound broadcasting service provided by the IBA.

  (4) A direction under this section shall be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
  (5) A person who knowingly contravenes a direction under this section shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

  (6) Without prejudice to subsection (5) above, compliance with a direction under this section shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Crown for an injunction or interdict or for any other appropriate relief.
  (7) So much of section 14(10) of the 1956 Act as relates to the place from which a broadcast is to be treated as made shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.
  (8) In this section—
  "broadcasting authority" means the BBC or the IBA;
  "listed event" has the same meaning as in section 14 above;
  "material" means sounds or visual images or both;
  "programme" includes teletext transmission;
  "protected event" means a sporting or other event which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is one of a series of similar events the whole or any part of which—

  (a) it was at the commencement of this section the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast; and

  (b) but for the acquisition of rights to include the whole or any part of events in that series in external broadcasting services, it would still be the practice of that authority to broadcast:

  and for the purposes of this subsection anything broadcast by either of the broadcasting authorities shall be treated as broadcast by each of them.'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 140.
  Mr. Hurd: This new clause stems directly from an anxiety felt by independent broadcasters as a result of the new and more liberal telecommunications regime recently approved by Parliament. It also stems from the Government's decision to allow Radio Luxembourg a landline by which material sent from the United Kingdom and broadcast back to the United Kingdom is subject only to the laws and regulations of Luxembourg rather than to the regulations and laws here. Those anxieties were strongly reflected in our discussions in Committee.
  As quickly became clear, the anxieties expressed go beyond concern over the plans of one particular radio station which has been competing with British radio without restriction for many years. The fear was that the door would open through which others would push and that the competition which might result would be widespread, unfair and destructive.
  These arguments for some protection found favour with the Committee, and I then outlined the steps which the Government were ready to take. No text of the Government proposals was ready for the Committee, and naturally it decided to pass a new clause, now clause 48, to mark its determination that effective action should be taken.
  As I explained to the Committee, clause 48 contains some technical defects and would not work effectively to provide the protection that was sought. This new clause embodies the Government's proposals, which we believe are the sensible way of dealing with the problem. The Committee agreed that there should be a power to prevent abuse of this freedom in a way that would seriously damage public service broadcasting in this country. It would not be right to try to subject the activities of foreign broadcasters operating in this country to some sort of day-by-day supervision. Our own broadcasters are entrusted with the relatively limited resources of the spectrum, and are required to exercise their stewardship in the general public interest.
  However, foreign broadcasters operating in this country normally simply seek to do business with one of our national telecommunications operators so that they can send material to their own foreign transmitters, where their broadcasters are subject to the framework of rules of the country in question. To license them in some way in this country would be hard to reconcile with the stand that Britain has always taken on the free flow of information. There would be major practical difficulties as well.
  We would not want a situation in which the broadcasting organisations of one of our neighbours, each time they sent a live interview from London for inclusion in their own radio or television services, were subject to supervision by a United Kingdom authority because those services would be receivable here.
  We came to the conclusion that to meet the anxieties that have been expressed we needed not a system that required everything to be supervised but a reserve power that could be invoked in particular circumstances where the interests of our own broadcasting services were clearly at stake. Thus, in the normal course of events there would be no regulation or bureacracy, but in an exceptional case the right steps could be taken.
  7.15 pm
  There was much discussion in Committee about who should be entrusted with this power. Different views were expressed. I entirely accept the points that were made
  754
  about the dangers of ministerial involvement in programme content. That is not the sort of territory in which Ministers ought normally to have any place. The new clause is drafted with that in mind.
  We came to the conclusion that if there is to be such a reserve power it should rest with the Government and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Successive Governments, rather than the broadcasters, have until recently operated the longstanding restrictions on the provision of landline facilities from this country for certain foreign broadcasters. Therefore, what we are proposing is not new. Having looked at the other possibilities, we are satisfied that they are not appealing for one reason of another.
  We are talking about a reserve power which is to be exercised in the interests of public service broadcasting generally. That makes it difficult to give it to one of our broadcasting authorities rather than the other, even if it were prepared to exercise such a power. If national broadcasting policy is at stake, that should be a matter for the relevant Minister of the Crown who is accountable to this House for his actions.
  A second consideration in our minds was that anyone exercising this power would need to take account of our international relations and obligations. I have already mentioned our commitment to the free flow of information.
  Thirdly—and this is the strongest argument—any reserve power clearly needs to be backed up with the possibility of sanctions, and it would be wrong in principle if prosecutions in our courts arose as a result of a decision by one of our broadcasting authorities.
  A particular interest has legitimately asked for some protection, which can be achieved only by Parliament granting the power which could lead to criminal and civil proceedings. We accept that this is a reasonable request, but we do not think that the Government can shuffle off that responsibility. If the power and responsibility are justified, the Government should carry them out themselves, and explain and defend at home and abroad what they are doing and why. That is the straightforward way of dealing with this matter.
  New clause 6 provides for the Secretary of State to have a power to issue directions when it seems to him requisite or expedient to do so in the interests of public service broadcasting in this country. Before exercising the power he must consult both the BBC and IBA. We have inserted that provision since our disussion in Committee.
  Subsection (3) cites two particular instances where it might be in the interests of public service broadcasting for the power to be invoked. The first is where there is a risk that our domestic services might be deprived of a sporting or other event which they have normally shown because it had been bought up by a foreign station for re-broadcasting here. The second instance is where the broadcaster sends material from here which would not be allowed over our own public service channels. Directions do not have to be confined to particular types of programmes. If an overseas broadcaster wanted to set up shop here and send out the whole of his service for immediate re-transmission back to this country, it might be that a general direction would be in order on the ground that the service as a whole was operated to the detriment of the more closely regulated domestic channels.
  There must be a sanction, of course. We have proposed a dual approach. Subsection (5) creates a new offence.

  755
  Subsection (6) permits civil proceedings which would enable the courts to issue injunctions in advance of the damage being done. This is important. I believe that the sanctions are adequate, especially in view of the interest of the telecommunications operator in not being found to aid and abet anyone to send material unlawfully.
  Once this power was seen to exist I hope that it would rarely, if ever, need to be used. We do not see a case for preventing organisations from having a landline to send news, current affairs items and interviews from this country. That is not the mischief that was feared. The fear is that the landline might enable a foreign organisation in effect to masquerade as a British broadcasting organisation but without the controls and regulations that apply to such British organisations.
  We all agreed in Committee that some safeguard was needed against that possible mischief. We have made a major effort to find an answer to a genuine anxiety. I hope that the House will agree to it.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Those members of the Standing Committee who supported the new clause which has become clause 48 had very much in mind, for varying reasons, the protection of the quality and standards of our broadcasting. It was against that background that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were prepared to subscribe to the clause. The Government have now introduced on Report new clause 6 and, whereas some of its contents will find favour with those of us who supported the original amendment, it leaves a number of others of us saddened that the Government did not have the courage to go all the way to protect regulated broadcasting. The Government have sought to keep a reserve power which in itself is a weaker form of regulation than regulation itself.
  The question at the heart of this is whether we are moving steadily towards deregulated broadcasting. Many of us would view deregulation with some concern. I accept what the Minister said about outflow broadcasting—broadcasting to a foreign country of interviews and other material originating here—being subject to the rules and regulations of the country of receipt, but that does not affect the problem which many of us have in mind, which is the programme made here, broadcast or landlined out and then rebroadcast in by television or back through a cable system. In that case, it is the view of many of my hon. Friends that the standards and regulations which apply to public service broadcasting generally here must equally be applicable to that form of broadcasting.
  The Government will find that we shall not oppose new clause 6 at the end of the debate, but we put it on record at this stage that we do do not think that the powers taken by the Government are adequate to deal with the potential mischief that can arise from the activities of those who seek to deregulate the whole of broadcasting. In deregulation will lie a diminution in the quality and standards of our broadcasting, which have become the envy of the world. Many of us would fear any step which sought to interfere with the high standards which we have enjoyed heretofore.
  Mr. John Gorst: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) about standards, but there is another aspect, which is the viability of the system that we enjoy, and its
  756
  viability would be affected considerably if live advertisements left this country and were rebroadcast simultaneously.
  I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure the House that the words in subsection (2),
  "material either for programmes generally, for programmes of a particular description or for particular programmes,"
  mean not only ordinary programme material for information or entertainment purposes, but advertising material.
  It is important that the finances upon which our system depends are not eroded or undermined as a result of people broadcasting a much higher percentage of advertising per hour than is allowed to out stations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure the House about that.
  What bothers me about the way that my right hon. Friend has chosen to handle the problem is that he has decided to have what he calls a reserve power. I wonder who will take the initiative to trigger off the exercise of that power, especially when the judgment will be that, "1 am going bust," says director A, or, "I might go bust in six weeks or six months," and the Home Secretary of the day decides, on the advice of his officials, that he would prefer to wait and see because of all the international implications of using his reserve power. By that time it will be too late.
  Had my right hon. Friend taken the line which I recommended in Committee that one of the broadasting authorities—either the Cable Authority or IBA—should be monitoring this, we could have expected a more sensitive approach to seeing whether the viability of our public service broadcasting, commercial or otherwise, was genuinely affected. I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend on this sensitive score of whether the power here as a reserve power will be used soon enough should the situation arise.
  I still have the objection that I voiced in Committee. The Home Secretary is the arbiter in these matters. However, I concede that the new clause is obviously more comprehensive than clause 48. For that reason, if for no other, I do not propose to cross swords with my right hon Friend, but I hope that he can give the House an assurance about the worry that I have expressed.
  Mr. Tim Brinton: At the outset of this debate I ought perhaps to declare my interests. I am a consultant to the British Videograms Association and Communications Strategy. I am a director of Airtime Publicity (Newsflash) Ltd. and of East and Mid-Kent community radio stations. I should perhaps add that none of these institutions has any direct interest in the matters arising in the Bill—nor has any of them approached me —but, as they are media-related companies, it is right to put it on the record straight away. My interest primarily is having been a broadcaster on film and television since 1951, so it is rather all-embracing.
  Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I also do what I should have done at the outset? I declared my interest in Committee, but I should also declare now an interest in both Capital Radio and Ladbrokes.
  Mr. Brinton: I intervene briefly to welcome my right hon. Friend's attempt to push a temporary cork into a very fizzy bottle. I do not anticipate the cork staying in place for too long, but it will at least give considerable comfort

  757
  to those who faced, and continue to face until the Bill is passed, the threat of what they regard as totally unfair competition.
  I, too, query the word "programme" in subsection (2). It seems to me that that does not necessarily cover the broadcasting of commercial advertisements.
  I also worry about the word "broadcasts" in subsection (1)(a). Where does a broadcast begin? The system, as my right hon. Friend knows as a result of the Telecommunications Bill, is that stations such as Radio Luxembourg can initiate the sound of a broadcast in Britain through a microphone or mechanical contrivance down a land line to a foreign country and then transmit it back to Britain. If the word "broadcasts" in legal terms covers the act of transmission, I am happy with that little piece of drafting. If the broadcast is the noise that emits from a studio or some other location, that is probably not apt.
  Concern has been expressed, as my right hon. Friend has recognised, that the Home Secretary should deal with matters of good taste and judgment of material to be broadcast. I suppose that we have to accept that this is the way chosen and I hope that it will work without too much intrusion.
  I started by referring to a temporary cork in a fizzy bottle. If one considers the advance of technology these days, it is hard to understand how we can prevent a huge growth of little community radio stations and big stations in space, firing off broadcasts to us, both radio and television, in about 10 or 15 years' time. I, like everyone in the House, want to protect the British standards of broadcasting, but we will have to move towards some form of deregulation for some parts of it, and possibly radio will be the first customer.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Hurd: I agree that there has been a good deal of fizz in this bottle. Sometimes, listening to some of the things that have been said, although not in the House or in Committee, I felt that we were being accused of inventing Radio Luxembourg. Nevertheless, we have accepted the need for a power. I can reassure my hon. Friends about advertising. The word "programme" includes advertisement throughout the Bill and indeed in the Broadcasting Act 1981, except when specifically indicated otherwise. For example, new clause 5, which we have just approved, says:
  "'programme', in relation to a cable programme service, includes any item included in that service".
  That is straightforward. Certainly advertising would be included within the scope of the power.
  I imagine that the procedure would be that any person or organisation which felt aggrieved by a development would inform my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, either through the IBA or directly, and my right hon. and learned Friend would then have to consult the IBA and the BBC under the Bill before he used the power.
  I take the point that there may be occasions when, if the power is to be effective, it has to be promptly used and we must clearly organise ourselves to that end. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) about "broadcasting" is similarly covered. It has the wider interpretation that he prefers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

  INCLUSION OF SOUND RECORDINGS AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS IN CABLE PROGRAMMES
  .—(1) At the end of paragraph (c) of section 12(5) of the 1956 Act (copyright in sound recordings) there shall be added the words "or including it in a cable programme".
  (2) In section 13(5) of that Act (copyright in cinematograph films) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
  "(d) including the film in a cable programme".
  (3) After section 40 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—

  INCLUSION OF SOUND RECORDINGS AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS IN CABLE PROGRAMMES

    Inclusion of sound recordings and cinematograph films in cable programmes.
    40A.—(1) Where a cable programme is sent and a person, by the reception of that programme, causes a sound recording to be heard in public, he does not thereby infringe the copyright (if any) in that recording under section 12 of this Act.
    (2) Where a cable programme is sent and the programme is an authorised programme, any person who, by the reception of the programme, causes a cinematograph film to be seen or heard in public shall be in the like position, in any proceedings for infringement of copyright (if any) in the film under section 13 of this Act, as if he had been the holder of a licence granted by the owner of that copyright to cause the film to be seen or heard in public by the reception of the programme.
    (3) If, in the circumstances mentioned in the last preceding subsection, a person causing a cinematograph film to be seen or heard infringes the copyright in the film by reason that the cable programme was not an authorised programme—

    (a) no proceedings shall be brought against that person under this Act in respect of his infringement of that copyright, but

    (b) it shall be taken into account in assessing damages in any proceedings against the person sending the programme, in so far as that copyright was infringed by him in sending the programme.

    (4) For the purposes of this section, a cable programme shall be taken, in relation to a cinematograph film, to be an authorised programme if, but only if, it is sent by, or with the licence of, the owner of the copyright in the film.". '—[Mr. Hurd.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 51, 60 and 160.
    Mr. Hurd: This is simply a reordering of material in the Bill to make it clearer and more comprehensible. Clause 23 already covers a number of separate copyright matters and to make room for some additions which I shall be proposing a little later on we thought that it was sensible to split the clause in two. Everything to do with the inclusion of sound recordings and cinematograph films in cable programmes will now go in this separate new clause, while everything to do with the inclusion of broadcasts in cable services will remain in clause 23. Copyright law is by nature a fairly impenetrable jungle and anything that we can do to help people to find their way through it will be a good thing.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 12

    PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL TELETEXT SERVICES
    .—(1) If the IBA provide additional teletext services, then, for the purpose of enabling a teletext contractor to make charges for the reception of transmissions containing material provided by him and broadcast in such a service, the IBA may, notwithstanding anything in the 1981 Act, broadcast the transmissions in such a form (whether scrambled, encoded or otherwise) as will prevent any person from receiving them unless he obtains from the contractor the means of doing so.
    (2) In this section and in the 1981 Act "additional teletext service" means a teletext service (other than a DBS service) which is additional to those already provided by the IBA under the 1981 Act. —[Mr Hurd.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 100, 102 to 112, 123, 127, 130 144, 155, 174, and 176 to 178.
    Mr. Hurd: I accept the criticism of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) which I rejected in another context earlier. This new clause arrives at a late moment and I need to explain why.
    The IBA recently asked us whether we could provide it with powers to provide new teletext services. In particular, it was thinking of providing new information services to specialist occupational or professional groups, such as doctors or farmers, on a subscription basis. We agreed with the IBA, and I hope the House will too, that it should be able to take advantage of the developing technology of teletext in which Britain is in a strong position. Therefore, we thought it right, rather than miss the bus, to make this small addition to the Bill to enable the IBA to provide additional teletext services in encoded form so that a subscription can be charged for them. The services will he for general reception so that any member of the public could become a subscriber, although the services are likely to be intended for specialist groups.
    Mr. Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend envisage the possibility that the IBA may now, in a back door way, be entering the interactive services of cable television? For example, suppose somebody wished to disseminate a stock exchange and Fleet street service using cable, and the IBA came along with its coded service on teletext, would that not be a back door way in which it would be entering into this business? Has my right hon. Friend any objection to that if indeed it turns out to be the case?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall have to look at that specific example, but the general proposition that the IBA has put to us is that it wishes to provide additional teletext services. Of course it already provides uncoded ones. It wishes to provide teletext services in encoded form so that a subscription can be charged. I see no objection in principle to that. If my hon. Friend sees an objection perhaps he will say so. On the whole, it seemed to us that this was a reasonable proposition that should not be made impossible by the law.
    The IBA will have the power to provide DBS teletext services if it so chooses. Such services should be on all fours with the DBS programme services so that a DBS teletext service should have a contract life of 12 years as opposed to the eight-year life of a terrestrial contract, and
    760
    it should be subject to whatever levy provisions apply to DBS services rather than to the levy requirements on terrestrial teletext services.
    Therefore, the amendments to clauses 37, 39, 40 and 51 are technical amendments to define a DBS teletext contractor, provide that DBS teletext services may be broadcast in an encoded form so that a subscription can be charged, and bring them within the ambit of the levy arrangement proposed for the IBA's DBS services as a whole.
    The amendments to clause 44 and schedule 4 make it clear that the Satellite Broadcasting Board can provide teletext services. The amendment to schedule 5, which defines programmes as including linking material, teletext and so forth, is a minor drafting amendment.
    Mr. Bermingham: This clause is yet another example of the Government bringing something into the Bill at the last moment. They appeared to be making up the Bill as it progressed through Committee. Be that as it may, the Opposition note what the new clause brings, welcome the extension of the IBA and understand the reason for the applications being made.
    At long last, the real value of cable is beginning to dawn on those who are advising the Government on this matter. It is in the provision of such services that cable has its real value. In Committee, it was said on more than one occasion, by myself among others, that the entertainment side of cable is but an adjunct to its real value. Clearly the IBA is beginning to take that on board with As consideration of the provision of specialist services. Not only will it provide specialist services to doctors, far example, and perhaps to those who want, as the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) suggested, to follow the stock market, but to various other practices and professions. For example, in the legal profession a scheme is being created whereby one can get an update on legal decisions by an interactive system. If the IBA wishes to enter into such services through cable, that would be an enhancement and an advantage in the use of cable.
    In the creation of the cable system, the real value of such services to our society in the coming years lies in their availability. The provision of information technology by means of interactive services is the way that we should have been going. That is why some of us have argued that the Department of Trade and Industry's input into this Bill should have been greater. The Home Office interest lies in control and regulation of the content of the entertainment services that will flow down the cables. The real value to society is the information that the cables can transmit, by interactive services, between the consumer and the producer. In that way, the technology and information that are needed to develop our society and industry can be that much more easily available to us.
    Once again, at the 23rd hour, 59th minute, yet another series of ideas has been introduced into the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) suggested that we are on version five or six of the Bill. Those of us who have kept a score sheet of the changes in direction and the alterations are getting confused as to whether this is the 10th, 11th or 12th version. Perhaps by the time that we reach Third Reading, new ideas will have been thrown in.
    I hope that the concept behind this Bill is that it is a means of enhancing the way that information and services are made available to the public, whether at home or at

    761
    work. If we can create a cable system and a DBS system that will enhance such aspects of our life, we shall have done a good job. However, I fear that the Home Office has not yet realised that the Department of Trade and Industry has an important role to play. That can come only when we encourage industry to cable the whole country.
    Mr. Gorst: I rise in response to the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Minister to express my view as to whether there are any objections in principle to these proposals. No, there are no objections in principle, but there may be some rather embarrassing anomalies. There may be some confusion as to which authority application must be made. We already have the Cable Authority, the Satellite Broadcasting Board, British Telecom for certain services and the Home Secretary. Now it is possible for somebody who feels that a licence to run a particular service has been unfairly refused by BT and the Cable Authority to have a new avenue—the IBA. It will be able to buy in a service that has been rejected by others without having to refer to the Cable Authority, the Home Secretary, BT or anybody else.
    Therefore, there will be a proliferation of authorities or, to put it mildly, a sort of Irish stew of watchdogs. Has my right hon. Friend thought of the implications? I am not against it as a matter of principle. It is highly desirable that the IBA should be involved in communications technology, but should it do so without being required to consult, at the very least, some of the authorities mentioned in the Bill?
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Michael Marshall: I take this opportunity to refer to amendment No. 100, and, in particular, to what I take to be a move by the IBA to explore the possibilities of some originality in the provision of teletext. Like other hon. Members, I am in some difficulty because events are moving so quickly that it is difficult to have an idea of what we are discussing in the provision of teletext by the IBA. I assume that this turns on some of the new thinking within the IBA as a result of the 15 offers on the provision of services that it received by its deadline of 20 June. Anything that my right hon. Friend the Minister can say about that will be helpful.
    I invite my right hon. Friend to say a word or two about the definition of teletext. I understand that he was referring to the possibility that the IBA would see opportunities to provide services that are not at present available, such as the internal service for doctors that my right hon. Friend mentioned. This is a different approach from the more traditional teletext of commodity prices, sport, and so on. If we are to have a wider service, which I would welcome, my right hon. Friend should perhaps go further and make that plain. I have an interest in DBS. I declare my interest as a consultant in the British Aerospace space and communications division. My interest is peripheral because I am concerned only with the provision of the basic satellite.
    Will the value-added network service that takes up spare capacity, whether the spare capacity is in existing channel usage in daytime or in the downtime overnight, come within the context of teletext? If my right hon. Friend is saying that, he is providing an opportunity for an interesting development that would help the viability of the project as a whole.
    762
    I am concerned about some of the knocking copy that has been doing the rounds on the viability of direct broadcasting by satellite. I take it that in amendment No. 100 my right hon. Friend is taking a further step towards showing the viability of DBS, which is greatly to be welcomed. Other countries, such as Luxembourg and France, are looking to see how their footprints will offer them opportunities not only on the continent, but in the southern part of Britain. Inevitably, we shall increasingly be drawn towards an open sky policy.
    Therefore, when we discuss the viability of our national project, it is important that we give every possible opportunity to achieve that viability. What my right hon. Friend has proposed is important. I hope that he will expand on what he said earlier, because it could reassure many of those who are seeking to take advantage of what the House is providing. It would also help to overcome some of the difficulties that my right hon. Friend and the Government have had in trying to keep pace with fast-moving technological change. With the establishment of authorities that will help on day-to-day regulatory matters, we are starting on the right track. That is the only way ahead. I hope that my right hon. Friend can answer my questions.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was initially worried that the IBA might be providing unfair competition to cable by moving into interactive services by the back door. But the IBA is talking about a one-way service, whereas interactive services by cable are, by definition, two-way.
    Anything that the IBA provides will, in law, be part of its own services, so there will be no question of people seeking the IBA's permission for their services to be broadcast. They would have to persuade the IBA that it should provide those services. There is no overlap with the duties of the Cable Authority or with the machinery set up under the Telecommunications Act.
    I cannot add substantially to what I have told the House about the services that the IBA might propose to provide if our proposals are approved. We are talking about teletext, not additional television services or other value-added services. However, I endorse the basic thought running through the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North.
    The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out a problem. Throughout the preparation of the Bill and in debates in this House and in another place, new proposals have come forward. Technology, inventors and entrepreneurs do not always respect the parliamentary timetable, and when proposals, such as that contained in our amendments, have been made, there has been a major question for the Government to consider. Do we say "Sorry, it is too late. You have missed the boat and you will have to wait for the next broadcasting Bill", or do we add the proposal to the Bill, accepting the difficulty that we must impose on the House and which I do not deny?
    That problem has cropped up several times in the past year and our answer has depended on whether the proposal fitted in with the general policy of the Government and the philosophy of the Bill. We believe that the proposal embodied in our amendments does fit in.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 10

    NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
    `(1) The Authority shall appoint:

    (a) an advisory committee for Scotland;

    (b) an advisory committee for Wales; and

    (c) an advisory committee for Northern Ireland.

    (2) The person for the time being holding office as the member of the Authority appointed pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to make the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, his special care shall be the chairman of the advisory committee appointed under this section for the part of the United Kingdom with which he is specially concerned.
    (3) Subject to subsection (2), each advisory committee appointed under this section (in this section referred to as a "national committee")—

    (a) shall be so constituted, and

    (b)shall consist of persons selected by reference to such qualifications,

    as in the opinion of the Authority would be appropriate for reflecting, so far as is reasonably practicable, the range of taste and interests of persons residing in the part of the United Kingdom for which the committee is appointed (in this section referred to, in relation to a national committee, as its area)
    (4) Before appointing a person to be a member of a national committee the Authority shall satisfy themselves that he—

    (a) will have no financial or other interest in any advertising agency, and

    (b) will have no such other financial or other interest in advertising as is in the opinion of the Authority likely to prejudice his independence as a member of that committee;

    and the Authority shall also satisfy themselves from time to time that each member of a national committee has not such interest as is described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection.
    (5) The function of a national committee shall be—
    to give the Authority, with respect to the conduct of their cable programme services for the area of their committee such advice as in the opinion of the committee would be appropriate for reflecting, so far as is reasonably practicable, the range of taste and interests of persons residing in that area.'.—[Mr. Wilson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 7, page 7, line 4 at end insert—
    '(d) the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes, in an area where another language as well as English is in common use, to use a suitable proportion of matter in that language.'.
    No. 24, in clause 10, page 10, line 20 leave out 'and' and insert—
    '(d) that any condition of any licence giving effect to matters considered relevant and paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of section 7 above shall be adhered to; and'.
    No. 150, in schedule 1, page 41, line 17 at end insert—
    '(lA) Three out of the members of the Authority other than the Chairman and Deputy Chairman shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be suited to make the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, their special care.'.
    Mr. Wilson: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a curious omission from the Bill. This must be the first time for at least 35 or 40 years that a Bill purporting to deal with broadcasting in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has made no provision for the representation of the national communities of the United Kingdom.
    It is strange that a Government who produced the Broadcasting Act 1981, which made specific provision for the representation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the IBA, and who set up a Welsh channel in place of
    764
    Channel 4, which was made available in other parts of the United Kingdom, have omitted from this Bill any provision for the representation of Scotland. That omission is curious if not insulting.
    The Minister of State should be made aware of the feelings of Scots, which, no doubt, are reflected in Wales and Northern Ireland, that their views ought to be represented. The Bill sets out criteria under which licences will be granted for programmes to be made available in different parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that some rural areas are unlikely to be covered. Indeed, now that capital allowances have been removed, there is some doubt about whether cable companies will set up in business. Nevertheless. there is at stake a principle to which the Minister should address his mind.
    The new clause is modelled word for word on section 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, and the royal charter of the BBC sets out arrangements by which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be represented by national broadcasting councils, with the chairmen of those councils being governors of the BBC. I cannot see why the Government have failed to make special provision for Scotland in the Bill.
    Clause 7 sets out the matters to be taken into account by the new Cable Authority in deciding whether or to whom to grant a licence. It says that the authority shall "take into account all matters appearing to them to be relevant." That is a catch-all provision. Without prejudice to that provision, the clause sets out individual considerations relating to the provision of a diffusion service in any area. They include
    "the range and diversity of the programmes which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include … the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include"
    EEC matters and, more interestingly,
    "the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include programmes of an educational nature, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area and programmes in which such persons are given an opportunity to participate".
    If it is the Government's intention that the Cable Authority should have power to grant licences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it follows that there should be on that authority people who are competent to make a judgment. I do not take the argument too far, because we all know about tokenism—putting a token Scot on a council or committee. If that person is not chosen correctly, his interest in Scotland may be less than many of us would wish. Nevertheless, tokenism is better than nothing, which is what the Government seem to have in mind in this case.
    The national advisory committees established by section 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 were set up to ensure that the interests and tastes of national areas were catered for. When the Cable Authority dishes out licences for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen or any other area, there should be someone on the authority, by statutory right, who will know from local and national experience whether the applicants are reasonable people. Otherwise, we may end up with the appalling situation that those who take the decisions, without knowledge of the localities, will have a metropolitan bias. Conceivably, they may never even have been to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and might never wish to go there.
    We all know how centralised the existing broadcasting structures have become. We in the SNP find during

    765
    general elections that it is virtually impossible to get matters relating to Scotland and our party on the United Kingdom broadcasts. That gripe is not covered by the new clause or the amendments, but the programming companies of the IBA, which have a right to produce programmes, leave Scotland in a very weak position. I speak about that with some depth of feeling.
    If that happens in a situation in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have the right of representation, I shudder to think what might happen if we did not have any representation whatsoever. Can the Minister explain why no clause similar to the provision in the 1981 Act or to the provisions in the BBC's royal charter has been incorporated in the Bill? This constitutes a precedent—a remarkable step away from recognition of the national status of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That national status has been recognised by this House for decades, and by the Privy Council in terms of the royal charter of the BBC. I should be glad if the Minister would include my new clause, if only for the sake of symmetry in broadcasting legislation. I hope that he will approach the matter with an open mind.
    8 pm
    Amendment No. 15 takes the argument a little further.It takes care of a curious omission from the Bill, which did not exist in the 1981 Act. It would add the words:
    "the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes, in an area where another language as well as English is in common use, to use a suitable proportion of matter in that language."
    The commercial demands of cable broadcasting are such that it is unlikely that areas of Scotland where Gaelic is spoken to a substantial extent will be covered, but it is not impossible that they will be, and the position of Welsh-speaking areas in Wales will probably be stronger.
    Clause 7 lists the various factors which the cable authority has to take into account. One factor not mentioned in the clause is the question of programmes in other languages. Twenty per cent. of the population of Wales speaks Welsh. In the Highland region, almost 10 per cent. of the population speaks Gaelic, and the proportion rises to over 16 per cent. in the Lochaber area and 80 per cent. in the Western Isles. Provision must be made for those areas.
    In the 1981 Act the Government went out of their way to establish a Welsh channel in lieu of Channel 4, which covers other parts of the United Kingdom. At the very least, a small concession could be made by the Government in relation to Gaelic and Welsh.
    The next amendment is No. 24. I was struck, again, by the curious way in which the Bill has been phrased. Clause 7 sets out the matters which have to be taken into account, but there seems to be no provision thereafter—except perhaps of a blunderbuss category—for enforcement of an obligation or duty. In this respect, the 1981 Act was superior. Section 4 made it clear that there was a duty on the IBA
    "to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with"
    certain requirements. I would be interested to know why no complementary obligation is included in the Bill.
    This is not exclusively a Scottish point. It would be reasonable that if the Cable Authority issued a licence, having taken account of certan provisions which the authority itself deemed to be relevant, there should be
    766
    some power of enforcement. In passing—I know I must not refer to it in detail—I should like to say that another amendment or new clause was tabled on the subject of programming. If the Cable Authority had incorporated in the licence a provision that a certain proportion of the programmes on the channel which had been made available had to be of local production, it would obviously be essential to make sure that the licensee did not wriggle or slide out of the informal undertakings given to the authority prior to the allocation of the licence. I am not sure whether the powers in the Bill are adequate, bearing in mind the difference in drafting between the 1981 Act, which sought to deal with franchises which might be given for broadcasting in a more general way, and the provisions for licences or franchises now to be issued in respect of cable programmes. I hope that the Minister can tell us why the Bill is drafted as it is. I hope that he will take account of the view put forward in my amendment.
    My new clause deals with the question of the establishment of national advisory committees. Amendment 150 deals with the appointment to the authority itself of persons representative of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My arguments on the new clause referred to the ability of individuals representing our countries to be members of the main board, and so I do not have to repeat my arguments on amendment No. 150.
    It is worrying that, without any publicity or any advance notification that there was to be a serious change in constitutional procedures dealing with the national minorities within the United Kingdom, the Government have produced a Bill which makes no provision for the countries to which I have referred. It is strange and disturbing that, as countries, we are of so little importance to the metropolitan centre that the Government are prepared to deal with us by omission. Programmes may be issued to us without consultation and without guidance about what might be suitable for the tastes of the areas concerned. This is an important constitutional point, and I hope that the Minister will address himself to it very seriously.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Had the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) been present during the Committee stage—[Interruption.]—he would have been aware that we sought throughout our deliberations to protect the freedom of the companies that are likely to be franchised. We want to protect the freedom of those who are to appoint members to the authority to choose the best people for the job, from wherever they may come. To that end, the Committee resisted all attempts from all quarters to see any minority interests given a right of representation on the authority. We are not saying that a Scot, a Welshman, a Cornishman or—dare I say it—someone from Ely or the Isle of Thanet could not be a member of the authority, but we say that he should be there not as of right but because those who appoint to the authority believe that he is the best person to do the job. The hon. Member for Western Isles—
    Mr. Wilson: No, for Dundee, East.
    Mr. Gale: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: That illustrates the problem—it just sums it up.
    Mr. Gale: Were the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) the hon. Member for Western Isles, he

    767
    would be ideally suited to being a member of the authority. The issue at stake is that members of the authority should be the right people for the job.
    The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred many times to the Broadcasting Act 1981 and showed the misunderstanding that has surrounded the Bill from the beginning. We are dealing not with broadcasting but with narrowcasting. We are dealing not with television but with cable. We are dealing not with entertainment but with a series of interactive services that will cover many facilities and interests. For that reason, if for that reason alone, the Bill is important.
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) which demonstrate his lack of knowledge about Scottish affairs, especially parliamentary constituencies. Does he not realise that the narrow broadcast cable programmes will be transmitted to some Scottish communities although they might be entirely unsuitable? There is nothing in the Bill that would allow the national characteristics of Scotland to be taken care of.
    Mr. Gale: We now have narrow broadcasting
    . Mr. Wilson: That is the hon. Gentleman's term.
    Mr. Gale: No, I said narrowcasting and broadcasting. There is a considerable difference between the two, the difference being that one is received by many people whereas the other is targeted to a specific group of people, provided that they pay. The Committee believed that the authority should be chosen for its ability to offer franchises to the people who are best suited to the communities concerned. That does not necessarily mean having any representative of "Scotland". Of what part of Scotland would that representative be representative? Are we seriously suggesting that a Glaswegian could represent the best interests of the Western Isles? Is a Glaswegian more likely to know more than a Londoner or a Cornishman about what is best suited to the Western Isles? The answer must be no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]
    Mr. Wilson rose—
    Mr. Gale: I have given way once and do not wish to prolong the debate.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has given it all away.
    Mr. Wilson rose—
    Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for Dundee, East has made his point. We have resisted the application of specific area groups, of groups of artists, of unions and of others who have tried to make a special case for representation on an authority. If we had given in to those requests, the authority would not comprise nine or 15 members, but would have been unrealistically large. That is why we resisted those requests then and that is why we must resist them now.
    Mr. John Maxton: There speaks the south of England that controls the House, controls the culture of our country and controls the nation. The Minister probably understands the sensitivities of the Scottish people better than the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). He must be one of the few hon. Members who have made a sizeable profit out of Scottish nationalism as the author of a book called "Scotch on the Rocks", which was made into a television series.
    768
    I support new clause 10 It has nothing to do with the nationalism that is supported by the two parties that have tabled it. Anyone who represents a Scottish seat, a Welsh seat or a Northern Ireland seat must want new clause 10 to be included in the Bill. I hope that that is true of Conservative Members who represent Scottish seats. We will watch their behaviour in the Lobbies with interest.
    There is a separate Scottish entity throughout the range of communication services. That includes narrowcasting, as the hon. Member for Thanet, North would have it. There is a quite specific business community in Scotland that raises investment and makes capital in Scotland. That community is not centred on London. We have our own separate financial system, a separate legal system and a separate education system. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, the Bill refers to educational concerns. Scotland's education system operates under separate legislation.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Brinton: I am half Scot and half English. I served in the Royal Scots and feel strongly half Scottish, so I am divided. Will the hon. Gentleman accept it from me that narrowcasting will be decided on by small areas covered by a franchise that will not survive unless it provides adequately the types of service to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?
    Mr. Maxton: In other words, this whole thing is to be left to commercial interests. I do not find that satisfactory.
    Is there any guarantee that the educational content will be geared to a specific area in Scotland? Such a franchise will not survive on the basis of its education content. It will have to survive on other elements, and we want the noncommercial elements to be protected. We feel that they can best be protected by Scotland having an advisory committee which is made up of Scots, as is the case with the BBC and the IBA. That does not seem unreasonable.
    The people who have served on the advisory committee have not always been the best but there have been some very good people. One such was one of my constituents —Professor Tom Carberry—who served for a long time as chairman of the Scottish advisory committee. He also served on the IBA and added a specifically Scottish voice, advising the IBA on the best means of ensuring proper licensing of independent broadcasting in Scotland. We need that Scottish voice, so I support new clause 10.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): I support new clause 10. There is a clear difference between Dundee, East and the Western Isles, but it is not always appreciated here.
    Whether we talk of broadcasting or narrowcasting, we are talking about bringing to consumers in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere a service with a cultural dimension and others. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to the need to choose for the authority the people who are best suited to assess the interests of the community being served. Those communities are diverse. They constitute different interests and values. Clause 7(2) (c) refers to:
    "programmes of an educational nature, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area and programmes in which such persons are given an opportunity to participate".
    In Wales, as in Scotland, there is a different educational structure. The hon. Member for Thanet, North may not

    769
    appreciate that in my constituency 84 per cent. of the population is Welsh-speaking. Two out of every three of my constituents communicate with me through the Welsh language, and about 20 per cent. of the population of Wales is Welsh-speaking. In the Taff Ely area, which is about eight miles from Cardiff, 29 per cent. of the children receive their primary education through the Welsh language. Communities of that sort must have different interests, and whether they are better or worse than those of others does not matter. The search for centralisation and homogeneity is bringing a real threat, especially when accompanied by the provision of a cable service. I want to see a service that can respond to the heterogeneity of the communities of these islands. The real threat that attaches to the development of a cable service is that of Big Brother.
    The cable service could be a power for enormous good. It could herald one of the most important changes in communication, whether broadcasting or narrowcasting, that has been seen in the century. It opens a new era, but if it is to be the era of centralism, of a diktat from the centre of what is good—what is good for the Western isles is good for Dundee and what is good for Dundee is necessarily good for Middlesbrough, Cornwall or Cardiff —it cannot be accepted.
    Cardiff has a local broadcasting station that is known as CBC. Less than 5 per cent. of the people of Cardiff speak the Welsh language, but that station feels obliged to broadcast a Welsh news programme on the hour. In Swansea an even greater proportion of the broadcasting is in the Welsh language.
    There is a diversity of culture within Wales and there is a great difference in cultural values between Wales and England. Culture is not related only to language, for in English-speaking Wales there are cultural values and interests that are different from those elsewhere, and those areas are entitled to have some defence against the dangers of centralism.
    There is a reference in the Bill to listed events, which are events of "national interest". "National interest" is defined as
    "interests within England, Scotland, Wales of Northern Ireland."
    That is fair enough because there are national interests. The degree of interest in the Welsh rugby cup final might be enormous in south Wales but not of tremendous interest in Kent, for example. The interest in the national eisteddfod may not be great in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) but is enormous in my constituency. There are national interests and the Bill goes some way to take them up. Unfortunately, it does not go all the way to protect the interests that come within its ambit.
    A hot subject in Wales is that of a sensitive and responsive structure of broadcasting. The campaign leading up to the eventual establishment of the Welsh fourth television channel was an emotional one, but I accept that much progress has been made in recent years. In sound broadcasting we have a Welsh language service and an English language service. We have a Welsh language television service that is extremely successful and popular in Wales. The provision of these services has largely defused the feeling that was mounting. The
    770
    Minister is taking a step backwards in not recognising the need to introduce safeguards against similar feelings building up against cable television.
    When the Welsh fourth television channel was being set up there was a slight feeling to conflict with the cable companies that provide BBC and IBA broadcasting in the valley. The problems have been avoided largely, but that is an example of the difficulty in which we could find ourselves.
    There is an effective broadcasting structure in both Scotland and Wales — for example, there is the Broadcasting Council of Wales, of which Alwyn Roberts is chairman. Alwyn Roberts is also the BBC governor for Wales. We are urging that the same proven formula should be used for the cable service. Let us avoid a problem before we run into it instead of trying to respond when passions are high.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) concentrated understandably and rightly on the Welsh language when discussing regional and national interests. As far as I know, no one in my constituency speaks Gaelic as his or her first language. However, I am convinced that many of my constituents are concerned about the preservation of the cultural and linguistic heritage of areas of the United Kingdom where there is a need to protect it. One of the ways of achieving that objective is through the broadcasting or narrowcasting medium.
    As a Scottish Labour Member, I am always wary of supporting a new clause or any other proposition that is moved by a member of the Scottish Nationalist party, especially its president, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). However, when I heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) I felt emboldened to participate in the debate. The hon. Gentleman managed to confuse Dundee, East with the Western Isles, which is an illustration of the problem that faces us.
    Mr. Robin: They are both north of Watford.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend suggests, both places are up in the north somewhere. That is the approach of many Conservative Members who represent constituencies in the south.
    I have no idea what the promoters of the cable organisations have in mind. Having listened to the debate, I have a horrific picture in my mind of someone somewhere making pornographic films with Gaelic subtitles in the happy illusion that he will make money on the Western Isles. I am not sure about it, but I do not think that he will make much money.
    A serious constitutional issue is underlying the debate. It has been taken up by the hon. Member for Dundee, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). There are special problems in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and there is a genuine need to preserve the cultural, locational and other interests of those parts of the United Kingdom. It is vital that that should be done by means of broadcasting or narrowcasting, or by any means of communication. I am alarmed by the appalling degree of commercial centralisation that the Government have inflicted on the nation, and especially by means of the Bill, which will extend the process into broadcasting. It must be resisted.

    771
    I shall give what might appear to be a rather trite example of centralisation which we have experienced in the past. For how many years did the BBC speak in the exclusive standard English terms of those such as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton)? That standard English dialect was rammed into the ears of generations of Scots, Welsh and Irish. That was unfortunate and the BBC has learnt from that mistake. Many variations of dialect have been introduced by those broadcasting through the BBC. I am concerned that the Bill could swallow up and obliterate the little progress that has been made, even in that minor sector. For that reason and for many others, I am happy to support the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
    Mr. Corbett: I suspect that the Minister may be tempted to astonish us by saying that he has found our arguments so powerful that he feels able to accept the new clause. However, it is much more likely that he will adopt the approach that he used in Committee and say, "We want to use a loose rein. If the Cable Authority wishes to set up advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is perfectly entitled to do so." As has been demonstrated by earlier speakers, that begs an extremely important question.
    8.30 pm
    We are trying to build some non-commercial safeguards into the composition of the Cable Authority. In short, we are talking about the creation of substantial local monopolies. That is what the Bill is about, and that is the duty that will be laid upon the Cable Authority. There will be no competition. Areas of the country will be carved up and handed over to people who think they can make money out of cable. Those who take the initial plunge will be tempted to go down the same degrading, lousy street as The Sun news paper, going for the lowest form of rubbish in order to make a quick buck out of their investment. Conservative Members said that they would be perfectly happy to leave the result purely to the operation of commercial interests. Labour Members are not prepared to do so.
    The new clause refers to
    "the range of taste and interests of persons residing in the part of the United Kingdom for which the committee is appointed"
    In Committee I tried to make the point that we wanted the membership of the Cable Authority to reflect the realities of life in Britain in 1984. Most of our citizens are now women, so when those interests are being taken into account, as proposed in the new clause, I hope that in those areas where women are in the majority the majority of the members of the committees will be women. If the committees are started on the wrong basis, by consulting the list of the great and the good and putting them on the committees, without taking proper account of the changing role and changing interests of women, the situation will never be put right. I hope that the supporters of the new clause will take that argument into consideration. For those and other reasons, I hope that it will be accepted.
    Mr. Clement Freud: Just as I was a keen proponent—and remain one—of the local advisory committee, so would I like to endorse new clause 10, which contains virtually the same sentiments as I put forward in Committee.
    I should like the House to bear in mind that, having got to Report stage, the best we can hope for from the
    772
    Government is that the Minister will take into consideration the argument and recommendation for a national committee to include people who will have the interests of minorities—and of minority languages—closely at heart.
    I am not sure that paragraph 4(a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of the new clause are essential, in that a member of a national committee
    "will have no … financial or other interests in advertising".
    What is important is that people shall not, in the opinion of the authority, have views likely to prejudice their independence.
    In looking at the Government Benches as though they were an old television set, one sees the hon. Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) —[Interruption.] I understand that I am equally, as it were, on the wrong side of the television set. When my wife said, "Will you be long?" I said, "The debate may not take long but the declaration of interests from the other side may hold it up a bit." [Interruption.]I wanted to name the hon. Member for Watford for a particular reason.
    I wonder whether some of the reservations of Conservative Members arise from the fact that it has always been so difficult to sell commercials during broadcasts—or even narrowcasts—in another language. I know that one of the main reasons why the Welsh language channel faltered at the beginning was the reluctance of advertising agencies to recommend to their clients that it was a viable programme in which to interest themselves commercially.
    I support the new clause. I support involvement. I suppose that I support empathy on the part of the controlling communicators towards the consumer.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I should like briefly to give my full support to a sensible new clause which recognises, as it should, the cultural identity, the educational identity and, in the case of Scotland, the legal separateness of the nation of Scotland. It is important that representatives of those different backgrounds and traditions should be separately constituted as an advisory body and not merely selected for membership of the authority.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and his assorted allies are, of course, right to remind us that when we are talking about cable we are talking about something that is of equal importance and application to the whole of the United Kingdom and not just to England. I think we knew that, but he has reminded us of it, though I do not think that his proposals fit the case and I should like to explain why.
    The analogy which the hon. Gentleman and his supporters have drawn is, of course, with the existing broadcasting arrangements, but cable is not public service broadcasting, for many reasons. One of them is precisely that it has and will have its roots in relatively small local areas. Cable is a local business.
    We discussed in Committee the need for advisory committees, and I explained that we do not want to tie the hands of the Cable Authority by insisting upon a particular form of local consultation, underpinned by a particular system of committees. That does not mean that we are against the concept of local advice. Of course there should be local consultation; there will be, and has to be under the Bill.

    773
    In his peroration the hon. Member for Dundee, East talked about decisions without consultation. Has he not read clause 5? It goes a long way in describing not only the statutory need for consultation, but the way it should go. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that decisions will be taken without consultation.
    I do not think that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) can have read the Bill, because in clause 7(2)(c) one of the criteria of which the authority will have to take account is the degree of local appeal and participation in what is proposed. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) acknowledged, the authority can set up advisory committees if it wants to. Procedurally speaking, it can set about its task in several different ways, but certainly it has to consult locally and take local wishes into account, as well as the opportunities for local consultation. The same point applies to the composition of the authority itself.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) reminded us, the Labour party did a noble job in Committee. The hon. Member for Dundee, East would have been proud of the Labour Members who proposed body after body and estate of the realm after estate of the realm which should, as of right, be represented. We would have been left, not with an authority, but with a senate of the great and good, as defined by the Labour party. I make no apology for saying that we want something quite different—a small, flexible authority of people chosen for their own skills and experiences rather than for what they represent, providing and regulating a process which is essentially local.
    The same point applies to language. There are great opportunities in cable, because of its essentially local nature, for including material in languages other than English. Quite rightly, there was reference to Gaelic, which is allied to Welsh, but it is not only in those parts of the kingdom where those languages are spoken that the opportunity arises. It is actually arising in this city at the moment. In Southall a cable operator is providing services in the languages of the ethnic minorities. That is the sort of thing that cable is about. It is a very good thing, too. We do not need to put it in the Bill, as that is the kind of service that cable should be able to provide. The whole concept of cable is decentralising and local, for which clauses 5 and 7 provide. I do not think that we need these mechanical and procedural devices.
    Mr. Denis Howell: To listen to the Minister, one would not think that we were discussing the Cable Authority, which will have an obligation to provide a service over the whole country, but that is what the Minister has been saying to us. When the right hon. Gentleman uttered the view that cable was not a public service but a local business, he completely transformed the nature of the argument that has been used about the Bill up to now.
    We are supporting the principle of cable television in the belief that we are supporting a new public service that will be available to the people of this country to extend their choices and opportunities. Now the Minister says that that is not to be the motivating factor behind the proposals. I am absolutely astonished at that. The Minister, as well as Conservative Members, who have properly declared their interests in these matters, says that the new cable
    774
    services will have much less to do with extending choice and service than with the opportunity to get a quick reward from investment.
    When the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) told us that someone from Glasgow could not represent the interests of the Western Isles, he meant that people from Glasgow and the Western Isles would be best represented by London-based financiers. That is what he tried to say to us, and I believe that that is the cause of the present problem.
    The Minister took time out to say, very properly, that hon. Members were adding to what he called the establishment of a senate, which he said that the Labour party tried to achieve. I entirely agree with that approach and disagree with his rejection of it. Traditional interests should be heard when a new television and broadcasting authority is being established. I shall not weary the House by going over in detail the interests that we have tried to establish, but it seems astonishing to have a new service without representatives from both sides of industry finding some place on it.
    The interests of employees and of business and commerce need to be written specifically into the Bill, in the same way as local authorities have an important role to play when the authority is established. They should certainly be represented, not least because of all the planning considerations. Hundreds of miles of pavement will need to be dug up to put in the cables.
    There is also the whole range of sport, art and entertainment, which will impinge upon the employee interests of those working in those spheres, as well as the interests of the sporting, artistic and cultural bodies which will provide those services. They have a vested interest to the extent that cable will be providing an alternative service, and that should be represented. Those Opposition Members who tabled new clause 10 are saying, very sensibly, that legitimate interests are involved. They based the new clause on geographical importance as well as the importance of people within certain areas, taking account of their lifestyle, cultural interests and so on. I understand that.
    It is astonishing that the Minister has tried to reject the views of the regional or national advisory councils in the same way as he rejected in Committee the legitimate interests of people whom I have already mentioned. For those reasons, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the clause if it is pressed to a Division.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Wilson: The new clause and the amendment will certainly be pressed to a Division. I was shocked by the casual way in which the Minister was prepared to overcome constitutional precedent and ignored the interests of the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish. The debate has overturned quite a few stones and exposed several kinds of obscene insect life beneath the Cable and Broadcasting Bill.
    Even more interesting is the way in which the Home Office is beginning to take up the same stance as the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to Locate in Scotland and industrial grants. In other words, the United Kingdom Departments will be able to dictate to the minority nations of the United Kingdom what might happen. It is all very well for the Minister to smirk like that, but who will appoint the members of the authority?

    775
    The Minister will be responsible for appointing them, together with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. How much say will we have in that?
    We have heard in the debate about the important aspect of language. Indeed, the Minister added to that, saying that cable was intended to take programmes into local communities. If so, why does the Bill not deal with the language issue in the same way as the Broadcasting Act 1981?
    The Minister takes the view that he would like a flexible authority which will not be bound to do anything other than under the vague criteria laid down in the Bill. His argument, if one follows it to its logical conclusion, is that there should not be a Cable Authority. It should not be fettered by statutory restrictions, yet the Government have decided that that is not appropriate. The Bill lays down substantial proposals for the formation of the Cable Authority and its membership, and deals with the powers and the criteria under which the licences should be given.
    The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) raised the question that the authority should be composed of the best people — I believe that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made that point initially—and that they should have suitable skills. I wonder what would be the reaction in England if the Government brought forward a Bill under which the Cable Authority was composed of Frenchmen, Germans or Russians, who were entitled to decide which programmes were to be relayed into England. There would be an absolute outcry, yet that is exactly what the Government are proposing to do in the Bill by omitting all reference to a statutory provision for Scotland.
    The Minister did not make even token reference to the regionalism of Scotland, never mind the national status of the country. He just dismissed it completely as if we were of no account. He may trust the Cable Authority to take appropriate decisions, but I could not understand his argument. There are 45 million people living in England, and the Minister is not prepared to give any representation to the minority nations of Scotland with 5 million people, to Wales with 3 million people, or to Northern Ireland with 2 million people.
    The Minister will understand, based on those figures, that we do not trust him, his Department or the proposed Cable Authority to look after our interests. There is no way in which our interests will be taken care of. This is nothing more than metropolitan imperialism. Judgments will be made by people who are appointed by an English Department and they will be imposed on the peoples of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without even a sounding box with members and an advisory committee.
    The Minister referred to narrowcasting, but said that it was not important. He said that the Government want to make the service flexible and see how it adapts. I do not believe them for one moment. The Government, who propose to abolish the Greater London council, will find it no obstacle, next time they consider the royal charter for the BBC and when the Broadcasting Act is reviewed in 10 years' time, to omit Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland representation. They will be able to say that there is a precedent, that the matter was discussed in the House of Commons and that the House came to a decision. When I press the new clause to a Division there be a Government majority, but it will not represent and reflect the votes of hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
    776
    Therefore, we have a dangerous precedent. The Minister said that this was not a public service, yet the Bill creates a public service body, a public authority which will be given the statutory task of overseeing cable television. I am not impressed by clause 5, to which the Minister referred, and certainly not by the lack of statutory provision for local control. The judgments will be made by the Cable Authority once the Bill has passed into law. There will be no obligation on the organisation to take account of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish interests. For that reason, and the others that I mentioned, I shall press the new clause to a Division. It involves an important matter of principle.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time —
    The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 204.

    Division No. 396]

    [8.51 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Howells, Geraint

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

    Barron, Kevin

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Johnston, Russell

    Benn, Tony

    Kennedy, Charles

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Lamond, James

    Blair, Anthony

    Leighton, Ronald

    Boyes, Roland

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Litherland, Robert

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Caborn, Richard

    Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    McTaggart, Robert

    Canavan, Dennis

    Madden, Max

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Maxton, John

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Michie, William

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

    Mitchell, Austin ('t Grimsby)

    Cohen, Harry

    Nellist, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

    O'Brien, William

    Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

    Park, George

    Corbett, Robin

    Patchett, Terry

    Cowans, Harry

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Pike, Peter

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

    Prescott, John

    Deakins, Eric

    Redmond, M.

    Dixon, Donald

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Dormand, Jack

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Eadie, Alex

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Eastham, Ken

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Edwards, Bob (Wh"mpt'n SE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F"bury)

    Ewing, Harry

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Soley, Clive

    Fields, T. (L' pool Broad Gn)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Fisher, Mark

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Forrester, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Foster, Derek

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Freud, Clement

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    George, Bruce

    Tinn, James

    Golding, John

    Wainwright, R.

    Gould, Bryan

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Wareing, Robert

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Winnick, David

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Haynes, Frank

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Mr. Gordon Wilson and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

    Home Robertson, John

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Bellingham, Henry

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Body, Richard

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    777

    Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

    Lester, Jim

    Brinton, Tim

    Lightbown, David

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Lilley, Peter

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Lord, Michael

    Budgen, Nick

    Luce, Richard

    Burt, Alistair

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Cash, William

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Chapman, Sydney

    MacGregor, John

    Chope, Christopher

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Maclean, David John

    Colvin, Michael

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Coombs, Simon

    Major, John

    Cope, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Malone, Gerald

    Dykes, Hugh

    Maples, John

    Eggar, Tim

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Mather, Carol

    Farr, Sir John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Favell, Anthony

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Merchant, Piers

    Forth, Eric

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Fox, Marcus

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Franks, Cecil

    Moate, Roger

    Freeman, Roger

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Gale, Roger

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Mudd, David

    Gorst, John

    Murphy, Christopher

    Gow, Ian

    Neale, Gerrard

    Gregory, Conal

    Needham, Richard

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Ground, Patrick

    Neubert, Michael

    Grylls, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Norris, Steven

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Oppenheim, Philip

    Hannam,John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Harris, David

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Parris, Matthew

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Pawsey, James

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hawksley, Warren

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Hayes, J.

    Pollock, Alexander

    Hayward, Robert

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Powley, John

    Heddle, John

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Henderson, Barry

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Hickmet, Richard

    Raffan, Keith

    Hicks, Robert

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Hind, Kenneth

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Holt, Richard

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Hooson, Tom

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Howarth, Alan (Stratf"d-on-A)

    Ryder, Richard

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Hunter, Andrew

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Jones, Robert (W Herts)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Spencer, Derek

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Key, Robert

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Stanley, John

    Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

    Steen, Anthony

    Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

    Stern, Michael

    Knowles, Michael

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Knox, David

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Latham, Michael

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Lawler, Geoffrey

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    778

    Sumberg, David

    Ward, John

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Watson, John

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Watts, John

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Wheeler, John

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Whitfield, John

    Thorne, Neil (llford S)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Thurnham, Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tracey, Richard

    Wood, Timothy

    Trotter, Neville

    Woodcock, Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Yeo, Tim

    Viggers, Peter

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Waddington, David

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Walden, George

    Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Waller, Gary

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 2

    MEANING OF CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICE" ETC
    Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out `Part' and insert 'Ace .—[Mr. Hurd.]
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'consisting' and insert
    'which consists wholly or mainly'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
    9 pm
    Mr. Hurd: These are technical amendments. We shall later consider a group of amendments designed to give copyright protection to material, such as computer programmes, which may be included in a cable programme service or a broadcast. The amendments make it clear that where a cable programme service includes signals of this type, it is still to be regarded as a cable programme service, even though it does not consist solely of sounds and visual images.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, leave out `consisting' and insert
    'which consists wholly or mainly'.
    No. 4, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'consisting of' and insert
    `which consists wholly or mainly in'.
    No. 5, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'Part' and insert `Act' .—[Mr. Hurd.]

  Clause 4

    POWER TO LICENSE SERVICES
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 16, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'fifteen'.
    This is an important amendment responding to pleas made to us in Standing Committee. I shall deal, first, with one subsidiary issue. In the debates in another place and in Standing Committee doubts were expressed as to whether a cable licence would be required during the installation period when test transmissions were being run over the new system, but no proper service to subscribers

    779
    was being provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made that point. It was argued that if a licence were required in those circumstances, it could wipe as much as a year or more off the effective life of the licence. Having considered this matter, we are fully satisfied that, as the Bill is drafted, no cable licence is needed until the service is provided to subscribers. Test transmissions cannot be regarded as a proper service.
    The main purpose of the amendment is to extend the period of the initial cable licence from 12 to 15 years. My right hon. and learned Friend and I carefully considered the case made in Committee to that effect. The establishment of a cable service is a high-risk venture. It will need substantial investment capital at the beginning and a long wait before the investment is recouped. In present circumstances, we are satisfied that it would be right to provide for those who are to make those large investments a rather longer period for the initial franchise than we had originally proposed. The amendment extends the period from 12 to 15 years. It covers only the initial licence period.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make similar extensions to the telecommunications licences to bring them into line, although that does not involve any change in the law. For tree and branch systems the licence period will be extended from 12 to 15 years and for switched-star systems from 20 to 23 years.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister has cobbled together an extraordinary Bill for our delectation. This amendment is perhaps symbolic of cobbling together, because we have finished up with a process which is similar to what my grandmother used to embark upon—making bedspreads. She would obtain a bit of cloth, something she had inherited from her grandmother—the wisdom of the independent television legislation, bits from the BBC and from overseas —a bit of cloth from her mother, and a bit of cloth from interested parties, and there they would be gathering round like bees around the honeypot. She would have a few suggestions from the Home Secretary, which would be incomprehensible as usual, she would stitch them together and finish up with something—these days it would probably be in a folk museum—which I thought was horrible at the time. And so is this legislation. None of the pieces fitted. It was the product of a series of afterthoughts. That is what the Minister has given us with the Bill.
    Amendment No. 6 is perhaps the most monstrous of the afterthoughts because of the processes by which it was conceived. They were processes which cast a sad light on the way that the Government function, and particularly their vulnerability to pressure from the vested interests of members of the Conservative party who have nothing else to do to keep them off the streets but to press the Government to give favours to their friends. That is what they did in Committee. It was a repellant process, and it culminated in this extension of the cable franchise from 12 to 15 years. The Minister presents it as a considered response after long and reasoned discussion, but it is a humiliating collapse of any interest in standards before the pressure of his hon. Friends in Committee and outside.
    The amendment is a mixture of organisational incompetence and the afterthoughts of the Home Office. The number of amendments with which we are dealing today is an appalling reflection on the way that the Bill has
    780
    been prepared. We had 79 amendments on the last day in Committee. We now have this series of amendments. This is no way to pass legislation and provide for the future of a service which will have an important influence on the life of the country and on all our lives. It has been provided for in bits and pieces, by stitching and cobbling together. It is partly the result of administrative incompetence, but it is due also to a lack of co-ordination between different Government Departments.
    The Prime Minister's initial manic enthusiasm for cable television was as bright and unfixed as her eyes, to paraphrase Pope. That enthusiasm passed from cable to direct broadcasting by satellite and left the Home Office struggling with legislation that the Prime Minister had especially wanted to rush through to suit her own enthusiasm. However, she failed to communicate her enthusiasm to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's best friends would not say that his greatest penchant was to listen to advice or counsel from others. He formulated his Budget strategy, part of which wipes out in two stages the investment allowances. Those who had applied for cable franchises had predicated their financial forecasts, profitability and date of breaking even on those investment allowances. By eliminating capital allowances the Chancellor of the Exchequer effectively knocked for six the calculations of the cable applicants.
    The Government were faced with the humiliating climb-down of having one length of time for those who promised to use one system of cabling and another period of time for those who promised to use the superior system of cabling. It was a carrot to lure them from the tree and branch system to the star system. The Government had carefully worked out that strategy, but were forced to climb down and abandon their initial inclination to 12 years. They changed it at the behest of their supporters who are sitting gloating on the Back Benches, as they did in Committee, at the success of their pressure group tactics to get special concessions for their friends. The Government gave way, and that concession is made manifest in amendment No. 6. Because that was the process, because it is a concession to vested interests and because it is an ill-considered step, I advise my hon. Friends — not exactly tumultuously assembled — to oppose the concession.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 79.

    Division No. 397]

    [9.12 pm

    AVES

    Alexander, Richard

    Cope, John

    Alton, David

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Dykes, Hugh

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Eggar, Tim

    Bellingham, Henry

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Body, Richard

    Farr, Sir John

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Favell, Anthony

    Brinton, Tim

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Forth, Eric

    Budgen, Nick

    Fox, Marcus

    Burt, Alistair

    Franks, Cecil

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Freeman, Roger

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Freud, Clement

    Cash, William

    Gale, Roger

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

    Chope, Christopher

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Cockeram, Eric

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Colvin, Michael

    Gorst, John

    Coombs, Simon

    Gregory, Conal

    781

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Ground, Patrick

    Neubert, Michael

    Grylls, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Norris, Steven

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Oppenheim, Philip

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

    Parris, Matthew

    Hawksley, Warren

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hayes, J.

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Pollock, Alexander

    Heddle, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Henderson, Barry

    Powley, John

    Hickmet, Richard

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Hicks, Robert

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Hind, Kenneth

    Raffan, Keith

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Holt, Richard

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Hooson, Tom

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Howarth, Alan (Stratf"d-on-A)

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Ryder, Richard

    Howells, Geraint

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hunter, Andrew

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Johnston, Russell

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Jones, Robert (W Herts)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Kennedy, Charles

    Spencer, Derek

    Key, Robert

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

    Steen, Anthony

    Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

    Stern, Michael

    Knowles, Michael

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Knox, David

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Latham, Michael

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Lawler, Geoffrey

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Sumberg, David

    Lester, Jim

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Lightbown, David

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Lilley, Peter

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Lord, Michael

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Luce, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Thorne, Neil (llford S)

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Thurnham, Peter

    MacGregor, John

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Tracey, Richard

    Maclean, David John

    Trotter, Neville

    Maclennan, Robert

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Waddington, David

    Major, John

    Wainwright, R.

    Malins, Humfrey

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Malone, Gerald

    Walden, George

    Maples, John

    Walker, Bill (T"side N)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Mather, Carol

    Waller, Gary

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Ward, John

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Warren, Kenneth

    Merchant, Piers

    Watson, John

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Watts, John

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Moate, Roger

    Wheeler, John

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Whitfield, John

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Mudd, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Murphy, Christopher

    Wolfson, Mark

    Neale, Gerrard

    Wood, Timothy

    Needham, Richard

    Woodcock, Michael

    782

    Yeo, Tim

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Ian Lang.

    NOES

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Barron, Kevin

    Lamond, James

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Leighton, Ronald

    Benn, Tony

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Litherland, Robert

    Boyes, Roland

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

    McTaggart, Robert

    Caborn, Richard

    Madden, Max

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Maxton, John

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Michie, William

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Mitchell, Austin (G 't Grimsby)

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

    Nellist, David

    Cohen, Harry

    O'Brien, William

    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

    Parry, Robert

    Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Corbett, Robin

    Pike, Peter

    Cowans, Harry

    Prescott, John

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Redmond, M,

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Deakins, Eric

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Dormand, Jack

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Eadie, Alex

    Skinner, Dennis

    Eastham, Ken

    Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

    Ewing, Harry

    Soley, Clive

    Fatchett, Derek

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Tinn, James

    Forrester, John

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Foster, Derek

    Wareing, Robert

    George, Bruce

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Golding, John

    Wilson, Gordon

    Gould, Bryan

    Winnick, David

    Gourlay, Harry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.

    Home Robertson, John

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 33 leave out second `a' and insert `the'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 9.
    Mr. Hurd: These are both minor, technical amendments which simply improve the drafting of clause 4 in two places.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 9 in page 5, line 2 leave out
    `by virtue of that paragraph in a licence'
    and insert
    'in a licence by virtue of that paragraph'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 10 at end insert—
    '(6A) The payment or payments required to be rendered to the Authority by conditions included in a licence by virtue of subsection (5)(b) above shall be such as to represent what appears to the Authority to be the appropriate contribution of the holder of the licence towards meeting the sums which the Authority regard as necessary in order to discharge their duty under section 18(1) below. '.
    In Committee some of my hon. Friends were worried that the Cable Authority's powers to charge licence fees might provide it with money with which it could make

    783
    grants or subsidies. The Bill gives the authority no power to make such grants. Therefore, on re-examination we remain satisfied that there is no need to write anything specific into the Bill precluding it from doing something which it has no power to do. However, in the light of the Committee's discussions, we accepted that there was some advantage in inserting in the Bill an explicit link between the authority's power to raise fees from its licensees and its financial duties in clause 18. That point was particularly emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) — hence the amendment, which introduces a new subsection into clause 4 making it absolutely clear that each licence fee is to represent what the authority thinks is the licence holder's appropriate contribution towards the costs incurred by the authority in discharging its duty.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 7

    MATTERS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 34, leave out from 'the' to `to' in line 16 on page 7 and insert
    `extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to do the following things, namely'—

    (a) to include a range and diversity of programmes;

    (b) to include in the programmes matter which originates within the European Economic Community and is performed by nationals of member States;

    (c) to include in the programmes an increasing proportion of such matter;

    (d) to include programmes of an educational nature, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area and programmes in which such persons are given an opportunity to participate;

    (e) to include programmes provided otherwise than by himself or by associates of his;

    (f) to include programmes provided by local voluntary associations and to assist such organisations in the preparation and production of programmes;

    (g) to include in the programmes matter which is calculated to promote the understanding or enjoyment of programmes by persons who are deaf;

    (h)'.

    This amendment reflects a concern expressed in the other place and in Standing Committee, and one which found a special echo on the Opposition Benches. We are dealing here with the duty of the Cable Authority to encourage domestic programme material on cable. We are as anxious as anyone that cable should stimulate the home production industry. That is why the Bill already imposes three duties on the authority in this respect. First, it must, under clause 10(1)(d), see that cable operators include proper proportions of British and other EEC material in their programmes. This is the same formula as the statutory duty on the IBA in the Broadcasting Act, and it will be for the Cable Authority, like the IBA, to interpret its duty in the light of all these relevant factors.
    The second duty already in the Bill is to take account at the licensing stage of applicants' proposals for home programmes. Finally, the authority must include in its annual report to the Home Secretary an account of how it has carried out its duty to see that proper proportions of domestic material are included in cable programmes.
    784
    In the White Paper we recognised that in the early years cable would have to rely on a greater proportion of imported material than later on. That is for two reasons. The first is that the domestic production industry will take time to adjust. The second is that cable companies will have less money to spend on programmes in the early years while they are establishing themselves than they will later on. They may have to buy quite a lot of material off the shelf, and that may mean to a considerable extent from overseas. That is why we resisted the idea of a fixed quota, and continue to do so.
    In the White Paper we thought in terms of a duty on the authority to work over the years towards an increase in the amount of British programming used on cable, but it was difficult to find statutory language for that thought. Following the concern expressed in several parts of the House and in the other place, we thought it right to look at this again, and this amendment is the result. It adds a new duty to those that I have mentioned already at the licensing stage requiring the authority to take into account not only applicants' proposals to include British and other EEC programme material, but their proposals to include an increasing proportion of such material. In addition, the duty of the authority is to consider the extent to which an increase is proposed, so that if an applicant could show that he intended to show a high proportion from the beginning obviously the authority would not have to look for any increase.
    This extra provision, added to those that I have already listed, goes as far as it is reasonable to go in insisting upon a proportion of British and EEC material. It will provide an encouragement to home production.
    Mr. Freud: Although no penalty will be incurred for not broadcasting EEC originating material, I accept that the Government have honoured their commitment in Committee to see that the principle is enshrined in the process of licence granting. I think that the Opposition would have preferred a heavier duty on the cable operator to carry EEC originating material, and it would not have been very difficult—I accept the Government's desire to keep the arm's length principle and not interfere—to impose a series of fines for exceeding some reasonable quota such as 20 per cent.
    It has always been a good Liberal principle that, for instance, under a statutory incomes policy anybody who would like to pay more money should be allowed to do so, provided that a share of that increment goes in taxation. We should have considered that an infinitely preferable way to leaving the matter in the hands of the people concerned. However, I accept that it is better than it was, but I am sorry that it is not better still.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It was said that when Sir Frank Stenton was writing his history of Anglo-Saxon England he used to read each chapter out to his wife at night and if there was anything of which she disapproved, she, his bitter critic and strongest censor, would say "Frank, that is not worthy of you." We must say that to the Minister on this occasion.
    After all the argument in Committee for a stronger commitment to British production, which is the essential thing that we want to stimulate in the Bill, the Minister has provided the minimum encouragement that he possibly can. He has responded generously to all the pressures from

    785
    the vested interests, which are still with us like a chorus of angels—perhaps a demi-monde of angels—but to the arguments for British production, for real concern for public service broadcasting, for a real improvement in the quality of the lives of our people, he has responded not at all. He has maintained a straight bat although he was faced with overwhelming pressure in Committee to encourage production in Britain.
    The expenses of cable, putting the money underground rather than into production, will be such that there will be no surplus available to encourage production in Britain. That is where cable will be at its weakest. One imagines shoddy, ad hoc, makeshift arrangements. There will not be the kind of finance that, for instance, Channel 4 has provided for independent production, which has been a big stimulus to independent production in Britain. The Prime Minister, having visited the Limehouse studios, waxed eloquent about the need to encourage independent production and said that she would do something about it. Perhaps that is why the Minister has made this concession.
    That is an achievement on the Prime Minister's part but it is not enough, first because of the way that the Minister has gone about it. He has put in at this stage that the authority must take production into consideration when it is considering applicants. We all know the sort of promises that are made by applicants. They are anxious to get licences, because they hope to make money. It might be a licence to die-stamp halfpennies in the case of cable television, rather than print pounds, but they are anxious to get a licence and they make promises. If they do not live up to those promises there is no effective way of disciplining them. If commercial television, which has been lucrative and which has made an enormous amount of money for nearly all the companies, cannot be disciplined it will be even more difficult in cable where much of the investment is simply buried under the ground by the cable company. London Weekend reneged on its promises of 1968 and TV-am reneged more recently and more massively on its promises.
    It is not adequate just to look to the promises that are held out. We must have the effective sanction of a continuous control over performance. The Minister has not allowed that. Every company will promise a substantial contribution to British domestic production but there is no machinery by which the Minister can make them live up to that promise. That is the first mistake.
    The second mistake is not to insist on a fixed and steadily escalating quota for British production — the kind of quota system that operates for independent television. It might be too ambitious because there will be a need to buy the surplus production of American industry just to keep the cable companies going. If it is too ambitious, let us fix a lower quota, but let us set a figure that is a bench mark up to which the companies have to live.
    For those two reasons, the Minister's concession is late and inadequate. However, because it is a concession, we have to welcome it, however grudgingly. It is not enough, but we shall accept it as a minimal advance towards our point of view.
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: I could have intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) with the point that I wish to make,
    786
    but it is better to make a short speech. Contrary to what he says, my right hon. Friend the Minister has got it right, and this amendment reflects the feelings and wishes of the Committee, and not just one side of it.
    Yet again, the hon. Member is making the fatal mistake that members of the Labour party make. Because of their residual psychological problems, whenever they think about commercial television and how it got under way in the 1950s, they confuse the present situation with that sellers' market of a brilliant new development of private commercial television which was quite different from the public service broadcasting that had existed a few years before that. In 1957, as a powerful entity with a tremendous cash flow, commercial television could offer the public what they wanted. However, because of the high standards of broadcasting through the BBC before that, the public were fortunate enough to have, despite advertisements and all the rest of the razzmatazz, a good commercial service in comparison with other countries such as the United States of America and Australia.
    We are now confronted with a different scheme. Tremulous, timid intermediate franchise applicants are fearful of even starting contracts in cable television. They are worried about the future and how they will make any money, let alone the rest. That is not just because, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, most of the money will go under ground. He is confusing another important point there.
    There will be a buyers' market this time. We do not even know how round one will go, and there is no Cable Authority or structure yet. Demanding potential subscribers will be obliged to pay between £10 and £12 a month for a year's subscription, and they will insist on quality stuff. The idea that they will put up with just having American and EEC surpluses and not good British products is illusory.
    I do not wish to repeat the discussions that we have had in Committee. However, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has got it wrong. It is better not to have a percentage figure for a quota, which would be inflexible and rigid. It is better to see how cable television develops. We are legislating for an extremely sophisticated service, and the danger is that the way things are going the cable television industry will not even start.
    Mr. Bermingham: To present a picture such as that presented by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), of cable companies, production companies and service companies as timorous creatures venturing with timid toes towards the tepid water, is to screen reality. The reality, as those hon. Members who sat on the Committee will know only too well, is that the decorative PR experts who buzzed around the Committee corridors — and Adam Raphael got it right in The Guardian last weekend — put pressure, by way of word and letter, on the members of the Committee to demonstrate how so much was needed to finance this and that. Commercial concerns have a great interest in making money out of cable television.
    Those of us who looked with some care at the problems of cable television are well aware that the market is for the products that are already produced. We have pressed the Government to protect the content of the British home production. It is a simple economic fact that unless one has a safe home market, the export potential is not great. The great strength of our export potential in the commercial

    787
    production of television programmes and other shows has been that the BBC and the IBA have devoted about 85 per cent. of their time to British products. Therefore, producers in this country had a market.
    The Government have surrendered to the pressure of the cable operators who claim that because the industry is in its early days they must be permitted to buy, produce and show the cheapest products. Anyone who has seen the test transmissions of satellite television on the continent or the examples of cable programmes from America and Canada will know that their quality is zero compared with ours.
    We have sought time and again to press the Government at least to provide a minimum starting figure of home content. The amendment goes a little way down the road by providing that programmes must include an increasing proportion of home content. But if companies start at zero and add 1 per cent. per annum, they will not progress far. That is the fear of many of my hon. Friends.
    Therefore, we put down the marker and say that if companies do not live up to their promise to increase the home content and do not increase it substantially over the period of their franchises, that fact must be taken into account if they seek to renew their franchises. A minimum level of home content could be included in the Bill. It would not be unreasonable to write in 15, 20 or 30 per cent. as a starting figure, rising over the franchise period to the level achieved by the BBC and the IBA.
    If we are to protect our fledgling producers, we must give them an incentive. A new market is opening up, but what will it contain? Will it be only second-rate B-movies from the United States which have already been shown on other types of television? If so, cable will be its own worst enemy.
    It is no good starting at the bottom of the pile. If we are to have a quality service and protect the standard of service in this country, we must pitch the starting point a little higher. We do not propose to divide against the amendment. We are grateful for the small movement in our direction, but we do not think that it is enough. We shall watch what happens and we reserve the right to refer back to our remarks if that should prove necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 17, at end insert'

    '(h) The extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to provide, or secure the provision of, information about community activities in the area

    (i) The extent to which and the time within which the applicant or each applicant will provide the service throughout the area.

    (j) The extent to which the applicant or each applicant will have adequate financial resources and a significant level of local ownership amongst its shareholders.

    (k) The size of the area and the extent to which the area contains localities with different degrees of profit potential.

    (l) Whether more than one licence can be granted to avoid the creation of a monopoly.

    (m) The extent to which the applicant or each applicant is independent of other holders of a licence for a prescribed diffusion service both as to finance and control.'

    Clause 7 is still largely toothless. It does not even cover and protect the interests of the community that is supposed to benefit from cable as a local and regional operation.
    The amendment seeks to lend a modicum of social conscience to phrases in the Bill that will change the course of broadcasting, leisure and entertainment —providing that the operators do not go bust first. I
    788
    welcomed the amendment giving the operators an extra three years in which to organise their affairs. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I voted with the Government on that amendment.
    My amendment proposes to add paragraphs (h) to (m) to the Government's paragraphs (a) to (g) and specifically provides that the Cable Authority shall take into account aspects of responsibility which, at present, it has no duty to take into account. I would particularly like the Government to look again at the need to consider
    "the provision of … information about community activities in the area".
    No communicator shall be exonerated from a certain sense of duty. In this instance, the duty to provide accurate and and up-to-date information should be something which the authority considers. My paragraph (i) refers to
    "the time within which the applicant … will provide the service throughout the area."
    Here again, I am concerned that people will do what some television companies did. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has still not been paid by TV-am.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have. Has the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) been paid?
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Freud: Yes, I have. It is crucial that the timing within which an applicant provides the service should be part and parcel of the investigation which the authority makes before awarding a franchise.
    I talked in Committee about the need for
    "adequate financial resources and a significant level of local ownership".
    My constituency is still feeling the reverberations of the occasion on which a large company went bankrupt, doing infinite harm to the community. Because of the total absence of local directors, the bankruptcy came as a surprise to the community. Because there was no communication with the local people, people who would have lost £10,000 or £20,000 lost much greater sums and, in some cases, met their total demise as traders. When applications are being considered, it would be of great advantage to communities if directors of companies were locally based, had local interests and could reflect the prosperity or misery of a company at the time.
    I will not press the amendment to a Division, because it is the ambition of my party and of the Social Democratic party to see the Bill on the statute book. In some cases, we should like to see more rigid control; in others, less interference. Perhaps those appointed by the Minister will bear it in mind that, even if they do not have a responsibility, they have a duty.
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that it does not depress the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) if I say that he has usually taken a realistic and level-headed view of different proposals for improving the Bill.
    In this case, there were originally five specific factors in the Bill to which the Cable Authority had to give particular attention at the licensing stage. Two more were added in another place, and we have just added another. That makes eight. The hon. Gentleman wishes to bring the total to 14. I feel sure that he will agree that the more factors one adds to the list, the less important each one becomes. If we succumb to the hon. Gentleman's recommendations, a process of inflation will set in.

    789
    Although the obligations in the Bill are not as specific as the hon. Gentleman would like, they cover most of the points that he wishes to include. The hon. Gentleman mentioned information on community activities. That does not add much to paragraphs (c) and (e) of subsection (2) — to become (d) and (f) — which talk about local programmes and
    "programmes provided by local voluntary organisations".
    The rate at which cable services will be brought to the area is important. It is something which the Cable Authority will want to consider, as is the need to avoid the careation of monopolies. However, all those points fall naturally under the general duty of the authority to promote cable services under clause 4(8). The hon. Gentleman repeated the point that he made in Committee, which some of us found a little difficult to follow, about local ownership and the psychological value of locally involved and committed directors. That could be left to the general framework laid down for the authority. It is not the ownership of shares that matters as much as the commitment of the company and its staff to provide a good local service.
    Although I accept, without being patronising, that the hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place, when the people who eventually form the authority take away the Hansards of these debates before entering their duties, they will notice what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that his aim is covered by the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. Freud: I wish that I could say that I am immensely relieved by what the Minister has said. I am fractionally reassured that, if people read Hansard, they will see the thrust of my argument. The Minister said that it is not the ownership but the commitment that counts. Ownership does a terrific amount for commitment. There is no better commitment than that which derives from owning shares and a pecuniary interest in a company. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 8

    RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOLDING OF LICENCES.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move, amendment No. 17, in page 7, line 34, after 'Community', insert
    `and had no shareholding of over 10 per cent. controlled from outside it'.
    The amendment would tighten the provisions that regulate the amount of non-EEC involvement in cable companies. There is a danger that if the cable industry faces financial difficulties—as all the prognostications seem to indicate that it will—American or Canadian production companies that have an interest in getting secure access to outlets in Britain will attempt to buy, take over or increase their stakes in companies here. The enormous development in programming will come from America and Canada. Although, through clause 8, the Government clearly intend to reduce foreign involvement, I am worried whether clause 8 is strict enough. Amendment No. 17 looks as though it has been written by the Welsh language lobby as it reads:
    "no shareholding of over 10 per cent. controlled from outside it".
    790
    Tightening regulations in that way would prevent shell companies from outside taking a stake in cable companies and prevent overseas companies from building up their shareholding and hence their influence.
    I do not intend to push amendment No. 17 to a Division —I merely want the Minister to define how he regards the provisions against overseas involvement, especially overseas control, operating. Does he think that the Bill as it stands is adequate to prevent the type of contingency that might arise if cable companies are in financial difficulties?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a tightening amendment. I agree. It would throttle some interests that will want legitimately to provide a cable service. We have always said that we do not think it right for cable companies to come under foreign control. Clause 8 closely follows section 20 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 in that respect as it precludes cable companies from being controlled by bodies outside the EC. The hon. Gentleman wants to change that by limiting any foreign shareholding to 10 per cent. or less. The Cable Authority will seek companies that are committed to providing the best possible services for the area concerned. It will be under no obligation to welcome every company that comes along with foreign shareholdings of slightly less than 50 per cent. The authority will want to form a view of what is best for the local community. Even after a licence has been issued, it can revoke it in the last resort. It would be able to do so if there were a change in the ownership arrangements which caused the authority to issue the licence.
    It would be throttling to impose a rigid 10 per cent. ceiling. If such a ceiling had been imposed on independent local radio, admirable companies might have been prevented from continuing. The answer lies in control, and the hon. Gentleman's definition of 10 per cent. is far too strict.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister has provided an explanation that is not fully satisfactory. We know that a Canadian shareholding has been built up in some of the local radio stations. The authority will have to act in the light of the available applicants. If there is only one applicant and that company has an element of foreign shareholding, the authority will be forced to accept that company. That is not an especially sound defence against overseas interests. However, the amendment was intended to probe rather than to throttle, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 18A, in page 9, leave out lines 12 to 24.
    No. 19, in page 9, line 19, leave out first 'in'.
    No. 20, in line 19, leave out 'or in relation to'.
    No. 21, in line 26, leave out 'in'.
    No. 22, in line 27, leave out 'or in relation to'.
    No. 23, in line 27, at end insert
    '(8) In this section "cinematograph film", "record" and "sound recording" have the same meanings as in the Copyright Act 1956 (in this Act referred to as "the 1956 Act");'—[Mr. Hurd.]

  Clause 10

    GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROGRAMMERS
    Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 10, line 24, at end insert—

    791

    `(e) that any games of chance, lotteries, football pools, betting, bingo, newspaper or other prize competitions be not permitted whether or not they require a payment in order to participate, except for competitions involving studio audience participation.'

    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:No. 27, in clause 11, page 10, line 40, at end insert—

    (d) as to rules and practices governing the playing of all games of chance, lotteries, football pools, betting, bingo, newspaper or other prize competitions, whether or not they require a payment in order to participate. '.

    No. 101, in clause 38, page 34, line 2, at end insert—
    `(3) the IBA shall not permit the use of DBS services for any games of chance, lotteries, football pools, betting, bingo, newspaper or other prize competitions whether or not they require a payment in order to participate, except for competitions involving studio audience participation.'
    Mr. Bermingham: We are worried about the growing habit of conducting bingo games through various national newspapers. There is the £1 million lottery game and The Times has introduced its share competition and issued little pieces of plastic. We are worried that such competitions will become the daily fare of cable television.
    Mr. Eric Forth: So what?
    Mr. Bermingham: This might cause people to spend much of their time in the evening waiting for the next bingo number to appear. It could be arranged for the number to appear at 9.15 or 9.30 in the evening in the middle of an advertisement, and people would stay at home so that they might see the number and telephone the company to claim their prize.
    Mr. Forth: So what?
    Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) is being his usual intellectual and eloquent self in continuing to say "So what?". If he had taken part in our discussions prior to his recent appearance in the Chamber he would realise that many of us are aware that there are other forms of entertainment, such as football matches, theatres, bingo halls and cinemas, which provide employment and offer considerable enjoyment. If viewers know that there is a chance that their number will appear, provided that they are watching cable television between 9.17 and 9.19 in the evening, for example, and that they might win a prize if they telephone the company at the appropriate time, there will be an incentive for them to remain at home.
    These fears are echoed throughout the Labour party and in many non-political groups. It seems reasonable that when cable television comes to fruition it should provide entertainment. It should not be a form of gambling. If people want to gamble, there are appropriate places for it. Whereas one would not object to a show with audience participation—the sort of quiz that we now have on BBC and ITV—one would very much object to the medium of cable being used for lotteries an gaming. There would be loss of revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but apart from that the whole ethos of gambling would be developed in that way, and it would not be in the interests of society generally. Therefore, we ask the Government again to accept the spirit and intention behind the amendments.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords] and the consideration of Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any limn —[Mr. Sainsbury.]

    Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords]
    Again considered.
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. David Harris: I was not prompted to get to my feet until the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) in moving the amendment. I confess that I have not studied his amendment and I have not studied the Bill. What I End completely offensive about the amendment is the typical attitude of Socialists that somehow they know best and should dictate to this House and to people who watch television. I do not think that I shall ever watch cable television when it is introduced. I have no particular views on the various competitions that are popping up in newspapers, let alone something called "Portfolio" in The Times. I have yet to understand it and could not care less about it.
    What I find completely and utterly objectionable is that the hon. Member should somehow think, with all the wisdom that he commands, that he should dictate what people should watch, read and so on. For that reason alone I hope that the House will reject his amendment, but I suspect that he will withdraw it in any case.
    Mr. Hurd: As has been said, the amendment was discussed in Committee. Since then I have had a useful meeting with the National Association of Licensed Bingo and Social Clubs and the British Bingo Association. I arts not persuaded, after considering the matter again, that there is room or need for a change in the Bill.
    There are laws on gambling in Britain, and have been for a long time. The reason for legislation on gambling is the worry that people might fall into difficulty or misery from the hazarding of a stake. The whole of the gambling legislation is built round that principle, and it will apply to cable if a stake is hazarded.
    It is an offence under the Gaming Act 1968 to engage in commercial gaming other than on premises which are licensed or registered under that Act. Participation must be confined to club members or their bona fide guests, who must be present on the authorised premises. That means that it would be unlawful to offer cable customers the opportunity of participating in commercial gaming, including bingo, involving the placing of a stake of their own, from their homes.
    The Opposition have not been particularly concerned with gambling as defined in the legislation which the House has already passed. As for other forms of gaming where there is no gambling as so defined, I do not believe that there are sound reasons for subjecting people to some special kind of control.
    There is the argument that the games will in some way be unfair to the gambling industry proper, but any company with interests in the gambling industry can diversify into the parallel area of non-gambling competitions. Therefore, I do not think that it is a strong point.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is the Minister saying that, if a cable company wants to build up its audience, provided that people are not putting up the money, it can give out numbers during the evening and a prize, donated by itself, to the first person to complete the card?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that point in a moment. It follows logically from the criticism that has been made.
    In Committee the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) talked of the unfairness of a possible cable competition which was funded by sponsors, so that the individual, sitting at home, did not have to hazard a stake. Certainly that would rightly fall outwith the gambling legislation, because there would not be an individual stake. One cannot really argue that gambling should be prevented on cable in the interests of horse racing or of any other industry. If we followed that argument, we would rapidly come to the conclusion that all cable was bad because it lured people from cinemas, video shops or pubs. It is not our role, or that of the House, to make up people's minds for them, as to where they should seek their leisure. It is not for us to restrict their freedom of choice.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Can the Minister kindly clear up the confusion arising from his speech? He now says that it is justified to have national lotteries if there is no stake, but a few moments ago I understood him to be saying that it would be unlawful anyway under the Act and that such competitions could not be organised. Will such lotteries, without a stake, be lawful on cable television under the terms of this measure?
    Mr. Hurd: One of the points that I have been trying to make is that where gambling is involved existing gambling legislation will apply. The sort of competitions which the bingo industry fears will take away some of its business, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in Committee, and which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to, are not gambling as defined by the House. The competitions do not involve placing a stake. Therefore, gambling legislation will not apply.
    The point that I was making when the right hon. Member for Small Heath intervened was that we would not be justified in telling cable operators that they must not provide this sort of entertainment simply because it might detract from the prosperity or well-being of other, competing leisure industries. That is an important principle.
    I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). If someone applied to the Cable Authority for a franchise and said that he proposed to offer wall-to-wall bingo or some other surfeit or excess in a gambling operation, it is clear that he would not meet the criteria for a franchise, which have already been set out by the House.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
    Mr. Hurd: I know what the hon. Member is going to say. Perhaps I can anticipate him, and he can tell me whether I am right. He will say that someone will get a franchise on a highly respectable basis and will then slip, as it were, bit by bit into wall-to-wall bingo. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his close study of the Bill, the authority is to monitor that sort of application and to tell people not to do such things. In the last resort, if they defy
    794
    the authority's directions, it can take away a franchise. There will not be the blanket prohibition which the Opposition amendment seeks to impose, but the authority will be able to chack any excess in that direction if it went beyond the purposes of the Bill.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I must confess that the Minister was half right about the point of my intervention, but what he says does not really answer the point. Bingo is the recourse of the financially desperate; witness the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, those declining giants which are desperately trying to build up their circulation. They have recourse to bingo. It will be the same for the cable companies. They will use bingo to build up their audiences when they face financial difficulties. In that situation the authority will have little control over them, because they will be in financial difficulties. If it does not allow then to have programme bingo, if not a wall-to-wall bingo, they will go bust, and nobody will be left to run the contracts. I that happens, what will the authority do?
    Mr. Hurd: I sympathise with the bingo companies, which dislike newspaper bingo, but not even the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should introduce a clause forbidding newspapers from offering bingo. We can sympathise with this or that part of the entertainment industry as it tries to capture the leisure hours of our constituents. They must be thinking, "Damn this form of new competition. It must be unfair." Whatever our personal sympathies may be, it is not part of our job to define how people should spend their evenings or holidays. Because we believe that that underlies the Opposition amendment, we feel bound to reject it.
    Mr. John Gorst: I had not intended to put forward arguments that I have already adduced in Commitee, but my right hon. Friend must accept that when we produce a technological revolution that enables things to be done without regulation which, were they to be done in public places would require regulation, control and surveillance by gaming boards, we have two different standards for people who are competing with one another. The point that arises from this series of amendments, and which arose in Committee, is one of parity of treatment between people who are in competition with one another.
    If the Minister's answer is that he does not feel that there is an obligation to produce regulation or in any way inhibit cable, the alternative consequence must be, as we argued on other amendments, a consideration in future of a measure of deregulation in other areas. That proposition does not appeal greatly to Opposition Members, but in all logic this matter arises on this series of amendments and others. If we make technological progress, we also affect other interests that might have existed for some time or might have been newly created. When technological progress comes along, we must not disadvantage companies already in existence by means of unfair competition. The Home Office must consider that point in relation to those whose interests are affected by the Bill.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I could not agree more with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). I was astonished by what the Minister said. He told us that all the multi-million pound gambling interests, which are carefully regulated and, in many cases, make considerable contributions to sport and other areas of activity as part of their fundamental operation,

    795
    could be subjected to gambling without a stake, on cable television. That is totally new in this country. It is true that it has grown up in the newspapers. However, I think that most of the newspapers involved now wish that they had never started as it has become a monster that they cannot control. It has even spread to The Times, which now has Portfolio — rather a stupid name. One can only say "Good luck" to The Times.
    However, people will watch cable television hour after hour. If bingo without a stake is provided, it will be a totally different ball game. As we heard from the organisation that the Minister saw the other day and that I also saw on behalf of the Opposition, there is a tremendous abuse of that type of sponsored betting on the other side of the Atlantic. For example, I am told that one cable television company produces three numbers during the course of the day—one in the morning, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. The whole audience is locked into that. The winners must claim their prize, which is substantial, the moment it is drawn.
    The Home Office is supposed to be responsible for the whole of broadcasting policy. What will be the effect on the BBC and independent television if the new gambling media emerge in the way that I described? Initially, gambling will have a considerable effect on the audiences of the competing television companies, especially if there are prizes of the magnitude I suspect. Already, petrol companies are offering prizes of £21,000, newspaper bingo is offering a prize of £80,000 and I am advised that £1 million games are not unknown. We are playing a different ball game. It would be wrong for any sponsor to take over a cable television company and lock the audience in for the whole of the day. Conservative Members may think that because bingo is a legitimate activity, the bigger the prize the more legitimate it is.
    10.15 pm
    We must consider other issues apart from the effect the measure might have on existing television channels. What about the contribution of present forms of gambling to various sporting activities? The football pools are already taxed at 4·5 per cent., as was pointed out in an earlier debate today, yet they make a considerable contribution to football. Those pools will be faced with an unfair form of betting competition which will attract no tax. On top of the tax of 4·5 per cent. football pools contribute to the football league.
    Horse racing is in a similar position. The betting tax is about 8·5 per cent., thereby making a considerable contribution to the welfare of horse racing. I have found, from being a member of a committee on racing, that most Conservative Members believe that that tax is an essential contribution to the future of racing. Why should people bet on horse races when free betting will be provided on cable television? The Government must bear that important factor in mind. The contributions made from existing forms of gambling are closely controlled—that is right —and are of great importance.
    I do not believe that you, Mr. Speaker, have been to any bingo academies, and you probably, therefore, do not know much about such matters. I am sure, though, that you play bingo once or twice a week when you draw names out of the hat to decide who will participate in Adjournment or other debates. Your constituents, Mr. Speaker, and those of every other hon. Member in the Chamber go to a bingo hall not so much in anticipation of
    796
    winning, although that is a part of the reason, but for social purposes. In many ways, bingo provides an alternative to the pub. Our constituents go to meet people, to have a talk and to participate in bingo. That social purpose will be undermined if bingo is provided nationally on television without any contribution being paid.
    Mr. Forth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that, conversely, those who are confined to the home because of illness or incapacity of any other kind might be grateful for the opportunity of enjoying a diversion through the use of cable television which they are unable to enjoy by leaving their home and enjoying the social environment of a normal bingo game? Are there not two sides to the coin?
    Mr. Howell: I agree that people who are stuck at home because of physical or social adversity suffer many disadvantages, but we do not legislate to provide automatically for people because they suffer disadvantages from being at home. That is an illogical concept.
    I am coming to the point that I thought the Under-Secretary of State was making. If he had done so, he would have carried us with him. If the new authority can regulate the way in which gambling is conducted on a cable programme, we shall be satisfied with that. All of us, the trade, and the football and racing authorities can make representations, and we shall all know where we stand. I know that the Bill emanated from another place and must return there. Will the Minister tell us, despite the remarks to which I have taken exception, that the Cable Authority will have power to regulate gambling on cable television channels. If that is the case, I shall rest content. If he tells us that the Cable Authority cannot regulate them, we shall be extremely unhappy. I must confess that we shall not vote against the amendment because of the civilised arrangements that we made through the usual channels to allow those of us interested in these matters to pursue our interests without inconvenience to the rest of the House. If I had not agreed to that earlier, I should have been ready to register my opposition in the Lobbies.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us that it will be within the competence of the cable and DBS authorities to ensure that any gambling is strictly controlled. If the Minister confirms that, I shall be pleased to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Freud: I support the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and point out that in this country there is only a limited amount of gambling capital available. At the moment that gaming capital AS distributed among social clubs, bingo, charitable swindles, small bookmakers and unlicensed greyhound tracks. When the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) argues in favour of deregulation, I should like to remind the Minister that that means that little people are knocked out and the large bookmakers, such as Ladbrokes which sponsors the hon. Member, are the beneficiaries.
    Mr. Hurd: The Cable Authority has responsibility under clause 7 to issue franchises on certain criteria. I cannot see that a franchise bidder who said that he proposed to provide a gambling station would obtain a franchise. If later an undesirable predominance of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) calls gambling crept in, the authority would have the power to give directions and enforce them in the last resort by revoking the licence.
    Mr. Bermingham: In view of what the Minister has said, we do not propose to press the amendment to a Division; and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 12

    ADVERTISEMENTS
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 11, line 26, leave out from 'such' to end of line 28 and insert
    'other bodies and persons concerned with standards of conduct in advertising as the Authority think fit'.
    This is a small subsidiary amendment to a proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton), which is now part of clause 12, to extend the Cable Authority's duty of consultation when drawing up or revising its advertising code. As well as the IBA, the authority will have to consult other bodies concerned with advertising standards. We discussed this matter in some detail in Committee.
    The amendment is a drafting amendment to adjust the wording of clause 12(1), but not its intended effect. The adjustment is twofold. First by inserting the reference to "other bodies" concerned with standards of conduct in advertising, it avoids the suggestion that the IBA is not such a body. I do not believe that that suggestion was ever made.
    Secondly, it removes a slight awkwardness with the present wording which could be read as requiring the authority to consult every person or body which had relevant experience in regulating advertising standards. That might have been a clumsy provision and difficult to fulfil. The amendment is intended to correct that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Brinton: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 12, line 3, at end insert
    'in the case of such of the programmes included in a licensed service as are in the opinion of the Authority comparable to ITV or to the programmes included in a local sound broadcasting service and'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
    Mr. Brinton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the previous amendments and also for Government amendment No. 33. When my eyes lit on amendment No. 33 I wondered whether I should withdraw my amendment No. 31. On consideration I decided to pursue it for a few seconds because it seemed that the phrase "licensed diffusion service" may be misinterpreted. Where the programme material on cable is like the programme material on ITV, the standards of advertising, especially in regard to timetabling, should be similar.
    My amendment seeks to clarify that issue by using the word "programmes". The word "programmes" divorces the material entirely from what might happen on cable channel or channels. A channel or diffusion service may sometimes produce programmes like those on ITV and at other times do interactive or other activities, which are not similar. I put my amendment tentatively to my right hon. Friend while expressing my appreciation of the Government's amendment.
    798
    A further advantage of the amendment is that it allows the Cable Authority to decide unencumbered but having presumably consulted the IBA.
    Mr. Gerrard Neale: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who no doubt hoped that I would keep my seat. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is not present, but I shall declare an interest as a director of Southend Rentals and advise that the Telecommunications Engineering Manufacturers Association, to his great disappointment, has taken no interest in the Bill, nor sought my advice about it. That may say something about my ability to advise.
    Bearing in mind the fact that I raised this point in Committee, it is worth noting that my right hon. Friend has moved a considerable way to accommodate the criticisms of the clause. There is now a far clearer recognition in the wording—I am sure he intended it previously—of the narrowcasting element of cable and of the particular problems relating to the share of advertising time on these programmes, which was noted on Report and subsequently in various ministerial comments. As the amendment will improve the clause, I support it.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and I are trying to do the same thing. We are seeking to draft an amendment which will bring the Bill more clearly into line with the policy outlined in the White Paper. We discussed this at length in Committee.
    I have considered my hon. Friend's amendment carefully. The difficulty about using the word "programmes" is that it could have a narrow, restrictive effect. Almost any individual programme of the type that appears on ITV may be said to be comparable. For example, a cable operator in Birmingham may offer a cable channel consisting only of Asian films. Under our policy that would constitute a specialised channel and the advertising on it would be unlimited, as my hon. Friend would want. Under his amendment the IBA rules may apply on the ground that Asian language films are occasionally featured on ITV and therefore are comparable.
    We have had difficulty drafting the amendment, as I admitted in Committee. We have now found words which bring the statutory language as close as possible to the formulation in the White Paper. I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will accept it. The phrase
    "so much of a licensed diffusion service"
    is as near as possible in statutory language to the concept of the cable channel.
    One point that we have made clear—the need for this was emphasised in Committee* is that whereas the Cable Authority should consult the IBA in deciding those points, the decision should be that of the authority alone, not a joint decision with the IBA.
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Denis Howell: This matter exercised the Committee for a long time. The Minister has met our points as reasonably as we could expect, and I express my appreciation for that.
    Mr. Brinton: I, too, appreciate my right hon. Friend's efforts to get over this difficult point, and I am sure that we are at one in what we intend. This probing amendment

    799
    was useful in that it enabled us to ask my right hon. Friend to declare his purpose that like will be treated as like, but that unlike will not be treated. in the same way. He has done that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 32, in page 12, line 4, leave out from beginnining to 'the' in line 6.
    No. 33, in page 12 leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—
    '(a) in the case of so much of a licensed diffusion service as appears to the Authority, after consultation with the
    800
    IBA, calculated to appeal to tastes and interests which are generally catered for by ITV, the maximum amount of time which could be so given if that service were ITV; and
    (b) in the cade of so much of a licensed diffusion service as appears to the to the Authority, ater consultation with the IBA, calculated to appeal to tastes and interests which are generally catered for by local sound broadcasting services, the maximum amount of time which could be so given if that service were a local sound broadcasting service.'.
    No. 34, in page 12, line 28, leave out 'Part' and insert `Ace .—[Mr. Hurd.]

  Clause 13

    INCLUSION OF CERTAIN BROADCASTS
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 13, line 26, leave out from 'schedules' to 'schedules' in line 28 and insert
    `then, so far as relating to that television broadcasting service, the duty in subsection (1) above shall be subject to the limitation in whichever of subsections (2A) and (2B) below is applicable.
    (2A) Where the programmes contained in one of the programme schedules are broadcast for reception in a greater part of the area than the programmes contained in the other schedule or any of the other schedules, the said duty so far as so relating shall extend only to the programmes contained in the first-mentioned schedule.
    (2B) Where subsection (2A) above does not apply, the said duty so far as so relating shall extend only to the programmes contained in such one of the programme'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41 and 52 to 59.
    Mr. Hurd: This group of amendments appears to be rather a mouthful, but I hope that it will not prove to be so. The group adjusts in some detail the workings of the must carry rule under the clause and its interactions with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1956, as amended by clause 23. The first amendment is designed to deal with a problem that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) in Committee, although his amendment related to a slightly different point. At present clause 13 assumes that the must carry rule can operate in all cases because cable systems will be entirely within the intended area of reception of at least one programme company, although it may be served by a second or even a third company.
    Usually that will be true, but we cannot be certain where cable systems will be installed. It is possible, despite the large overlaps between many transmitter coverage areas, that some systems could be partly in the exclusive area of Central Television, partly in an overlap area between Central and Anglia Television, and partly in the exclusive Anglia area. We are trying to ensure that, in such an exceptional case, the must carry arrangements will still work.
    The next four amendments are consequent on new clause 12, which we have aleady discussed. The amendments to clause 23 are consequential to the amendments to clause 13. They ensure that a cable operator is never put in a position where he is required both to relay a broadcast service and to enter into copyright negotiations with the broadcaster or other rights owners. The amendments provide the broadcasters with copyright protection for DBS and subscription teletext services against the unauthorised cable relay of those services where the must carry rule does not apply.
    The amendments ensure that in all cases rights owners whose works are used in broadcast programmes can secure remuneration in respect of the total audience, including any additional cable viewers outside the normal service area but who receive the programmes under the must carry rule. Although the amendments are complex, they make useful clarifications to the Bill and I ask the House to support them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 36, in page 13, line 29, after `service', insert 'or additional teletext service'.
    No. 37, in page 13, line 34, leave out `DBS programme' and insert 'programme or teletext'.
    No.40, in page 14, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert—
    "additional teletext service" in relation to a broadcasting authority, means a teletext service (other than a DBS service) which is additional to those already provided by that authority;'.
    No. 41, in page 14, line 6, at end insert—
    "programme" includes teletext transmission.'. — Mr. Hurd.]

  Clause 14

    RESTRICTION ON INCLUSION OF CERTAIN EVENTS
    Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 14, line 34, leave out from 'which' to end of line 3 on page 15 and insert
    `is specified in Schedule (protected events)'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 149, new schedule—Protected Events—

    RESTRICTION ON INCLUSION OF CERTAIN EVENTS

      Association Football
      The F.A. Cup Final
      The Milk Cup Final
      International Matches

      Rugby Union Football
      International Matches

      Cricket
      Test Matches
      The National Westminster Bank Final

      Horse Racing
      The Grand National
      The Derby
      In addition to the above, the Secretary of State may add events to this list by order. '.
      Mr. Freud: Some Opposition Members are concerned that it must not become too easy at any time for a cable company to secure for itself an event which the public have a right to see. Subsection (3) states that a
      "'listed event' means a sporting or other event … which is for the time being included in a list maintained by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section and published by him in such a manner as he considers appropriate".
      In the best of all worlds there would be open government, and such a list would be published for all to see and would be discussed from time to time. The new schedule includes sporting events such as the FA Cup Final, Test Matches, international matches, great races and, presumably, Wimbledon, the Boat race and state occasions.
      The clause states that a
      "'protected event' means a sporting or other event which, in the opinion of the Authority, is one of a series of similar events".
      I should like an assurance from the Minister that there will be no occasion when a national event will be allowed to be bought by a sectional interest.
      The Coronation would not be an event within a series, nor would the death of a Prime Minister or a royal wedding such as might occur if Prince Andrew gets married. Although that might be thought to be one of a series, I am sure that it would be no such thing.
      Mr. Hurd: I think I understand what the hon. Gentleman is after. He clearly understands the clause, but unwittingly he is introducing a confusion into the mind of the lay reader about what the clause tries to do. It contains provisions about listed and protected events. The hon. Gentleman is creating a possible confusion by providing a first list of protected events, whereas I think he is seeking

      803
      to give guidance to my right hon. and learned Friend about what should be on the list of listed events. I congratulate him on a helpful try.
      If the hon. Gentleman looks at subsection (3), he will see the definition of a listed event. My right hon. And learned Friend will have to consult all the interested parties about what should be on the list. He already has the advantage of the hon. Gentleman's view. I appreciate that the list leaves out Wimbledon, but this is the sort of thing that ought to be discussed. We have the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, and we shall now need the suggestions of others. My right hon. and learned Friend will then be able to draw up his list.
      Mr. Denis Howell: While I do not exactly agree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), I support what he is trying to achieve, which is to ensure that a cable company operating in one part of the country cannot buy up, particularly with the help of a sponsor, an attractive national sporting occasion and show it exclusively on its own channel. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, I fully support him. It would be wrong if that were to happen.
      I take comfort from what the Minister has just said about it being unlikely that that would be allowed to happen because of the negotiations involved.
      I also noticed that Wimbledon was excluded from the list. That is an odd omission by the hon. Gentleman, in view of the exciting two weeks which we have all just enjoyed.
      I notice that the hon. Gentleman included in his schedule a reference to
      "The National Westminster Bank Final".
      I remind him that only a year ago that was known as the Gillette Cup Final. The sponsors move in and out of these great events. Although we hope that the National Westminster Bank will support this 60-over competition into infinity, the chances are that it will not. Therefore, it would be quite odd to include a reference of that sort in an Act of Parliament.
      The hon. Gentleman has done a great service to the House in raising this matter and for drawing attention to the dangers if what he fears were allowed to happen. However, the Opposition take comfort from the Minister's statement that it will not happen without general consultation and the agreement of all the authorities concerned.
      Mr. Freud: In the best of all worlds, of course, the schedule would be published and we could discuss it. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) reads on, he will see that it says:
      "In addition to the above, the Secretary of State may add events to this list by order."
      Mine was simply a specimen list and, of course, the Boat Race and the Olympic games would be included.
      I, too, am reassured by the Minister's statement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Brinton: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 14, line 42, after 'services', insert
      'on conditions which in the opinion of the Authority adversely affect the financial terms on which a broadcasting authority could acquire rights to those events'.
      The amendment seeks to clarify a matter that we debated in Committee about the prohibition from pay-per-view. In my amendment it comes into force only when it
      804
      is the excessive financial terms which preclude the broadcasting authorities from covering an event and not because they have ceased to carry that event, anyway, and pay-per-view has negotiated the rights on straightforward commercial terms. The amendment seeks free competition, provided that the protected event has been dropped by the broadcasting organisations.
      As I understand the Bill as amended, it defines a protected event as one the whole or part of which it is the practice of the BBC and the IBA to cover and which they would still want to cover but for the fact, if they could not, that cable had acquired rights over the event. Am I right in thinking that these restrictions would apply to any new events or even one-off events?
      From the point of view of cable, pay-per-view is not prohibited from part or all of an event where the broadcasters are also able to maintain their own coverage. I think of Wimbledon, for example, and wonder whether, if that became a protected event and was listed, cable could get a look in. I wonder, too, whether it is correct that so long as broadcasters are able to secure the coverage of a protected event, cable can screen part of it.
      I tabled the amendment to clarify matters. I understood my right hon. Friend to say in Committee that only when the financial terms of a deal with a broadcasting authority were such as to prevent the broadcasters from taking it should the protected event be invoked. If it had been dropped by the broadcasters, it should be open to free market negotiation. That is the clarification that I seek.
      Mr. John Hannam: I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and refer specifically to the Wimbledon tournament, which is still fresh in our minds.
      There is a degree of confusion about the effect of this legislation upon a sporting event such as the Wimbledon tournament. It does not consist of a single game of rugby or football, or even a race. There is a fortnight of several hundred different events taking place on a range of different courts. Each one may be of some attraction to a different viewing public. For example, on court 13 on the Wednesday of the first week, the Scottish champion could be playing against some well-known player. That will not necessarily be regarded as an event which the national media would wish to included in their broadcasts under the terms of their negotiated contract, but it would be of great interest to, perhaps, Scottish cable, to show to viewers in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
      10.45 pm
      Am I right in thinking that, Wimbledon being one of the possible listed events, whereas a contract may be struck between the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club and, say, the BBC or ITV for the fortnight's proceedings, would it be possible for cable companies to negotiate separately for a varied number of the other rather interesting matches taking place on the outside courts?
      Mr. Freud: By the same thought process, would the hon. Gentleman expect cable companies to be able to buy the dressing room at Wembley during a cup final?
      Mr. Hannam: If the hon. Gentleman considers that to be a particular attraction to some other regional cable companies, obviously they might wish to tender for it. I doubt whether that would be a negotiable property, but I suppose that it is conceivable.

      805
      My point, and it is a serious point, is that a football match is a single event for which a contract can be negotiated but Wimbledon is comprised of hundreds of individual matches, all with a different appeal on different courts, many of which will be of no interest whatever to the contractor—the BBC or ITV. Therefore, it seems perfectly feasible that the All England club having secured a contract with the BBC should, with the BBC's agreement, be able to offer subcontracts for those courts to regional cable companies. Will that be possible under this legislation?
      Wimbledon can negotiate with any cable company outside Britain as of now. It can negotiate to sell for amounts far greater than that which it receives from the BBC the right to show matches, as we saw with the final of the men's singles match where a fantastic number of countries received the transmission. Will the Minister clarify that point?
      There is also confusion surrounding the contract. At present the BBC has an unwritten and unpublicised agreement with ITV. The BBC can negotiate a contract with the All England club and ITV can have access to certain pick of the day matches for the 10 o'clock news. That results in a low contract price being offered to the All England club. The figure is in the low hundreds of thousands rather than the possible million or so which that tremendous sporting event should command in real market terms. If one takes into account the fact that the profits made from the tournament are ploughed back into British tennis through the Lawn Tennis Association and other bodies, it is vital that we ensure that a proper market price is paid by the broadcasting authority which negotiates the contract. At the moment that is not so.
      If, in future, cable becomes well enough established for it to offer a price for the contract of Wimbledon, will it be made apparent by my hon. Friend the Minister that that price will determine the eventual contract with the BBC or the ITV?
      At the moment, there is an artificial situation, because of the power in the 1981 Act, which is referred to in the other place as the whip behind the door, to allow regulations to be made, whereby the national broadcasting media can secure the coverage of an event. This is holding down the true market value of the contract, and it is important for the interests of tennis as a whole, the bringing on of young players and the helping of the clubs, that the main source of revenue should be established through a proper price being paid for this contract.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct. To start with, Wimbledon is one of those events that both the BBC and the IBA can televise if they so wish. However, the IBA has opted out and left the BBC to do the televising. That is due not to an Act of Parliament but to a decision of ITV. The same thing is happening with the Olympic coverage. It is available to the IBA, which has chosen, for reasons that we understand, although we may disagree with them, not to be in competition with the BBC.
      The All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club and the BBC are two free partners negotiating a price. All sports bodies negotiate their own prices. I told the Football League long ago that I thought that the price that it got was far too low, but it has the remedy in its own hands. It can
      806
      either sell the product that it produces or not. In the case of Wimbledon, there is a complication, because much of the negotiation is done by the International Management Group and other firms, certainly for overseas contracts. The price for that is probably higher than that which the BBC pays.
      Cable television can come in and negotiate when the main contract is negotiated, and can compete against the BBC, the IBA, or anybody else. We discussed this at length in Committee, but agreed that that was the point at which cable television has the right to put in a rival bid to that of the BBC. However, once the BBC has the contract, it wants the right to show any match from any court that turns out to be interesting on any day.
      Mr. Hannam: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the very confusions that exist in the minds of myself and the All England tennis club, and that is why I raised them tonight. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to clarify the position, so that we can believe that a market price is being established. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case at the moment.
      Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) studies, as perhaps he has, the debates in Committee, he will see that both sides of the Committee were anxious that sporting organisations should benefit, and should not be at a disadvantage, from the Bill. We were under pressure, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and I were agreed that it is important not to prejudice the ability of sporting organisations to make the best of what they had to offer. Too many restrictions on that should not be imposed.
      If Wimbledon was an event listed by the Bill, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 14(1), which covers such events. It says:
      "The Authority shall do all that they can to secure that no licensed service provided by any person includes a programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a listed event, unless the Authority are satisfied that both broadcasting authorities have been given an opportunity to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of that event on terms comparable to those on which that person"—
      in this case, the cable company—
      "acquired the right to include it in that service."
      There is a protection for the sporting organisation, in this case the All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.
      We have ensured that broadcasters must have access to listed events on terms comparable to those available to cable companies should they wish to cover them. The protected category merely imposes a restriction on a particular form of pay-per-view which could constitute unfair competition.
      Mr. Neale: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that there was a fear, certainly in football, that if cable were allowed to compete or, more particularly, to come in at the same time, that could reduce the overall amount available to a sport.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has mentioned a case in which an undervalue was being paid, because a deal was done between the two major broadcasting operations, with one opting out—on the basis that it could show BBC coverage on news bulletins —leaving the BBC free to make a lower offer.
      The BBC and a cable authority could both do a deal. They would have different audiences and the sporting organisation would get more. That would be perfectly

      807
      proper. It seems from what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said that if the BBC offers a price comparable to what the cable companies would pay, those companies would be excluded. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that point?
      Mr. Hurd: Only in terms of clause 14(1). We are talking only of the relatively small number of listed events. Before authorising the provision of a cable service, the Cable Authority must be satisfied that the broadcasting authorities have been given the opportunity to obtain broadcasting rights for that event on terms comparable to those that a cable operator would pay. There is no question of the provision driving down the price. Even with listed events, the sporting organisations will not find that the provisions work in a way that is prejudicial to their natural efforts to get the best price for their wares. The Bill has been drafted with that point in mind.
      I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) that the restrictions on protected events cannot apply to new events. We clarified that with an amendment in Committee. The event has to be one of a series that it was the practice of the broadcasting authority to show before the commencement of the Act.
      I should make a final attempt to clarify clause 14, which I found to be the most complicated clause in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham is concerned about the circumstances in which a broadcasting authority loses interest in an event and the Cable Authority has to decide on the consequences.
      If a broadcasting authority loses interest in an event solely for programming reasons, the Cable Authority would have to decide, under clause 14(3) whether it would otherwise
      "still be the practice of the authority to broadcast".
      The Cable Authority might well conclude that it would not be, and it would then allow cable to offer the event on pay-per-view. If the broadcaster drops out for purely financial reasons, the Cable Authority will presumably maintain the protection and prohibit pay-per-view. The difficulty arises when the reasons for the broadcaster dropping out are mixed — partly programming and partly financial. The authority has then to decide which reason is predominant and come to a view on pay-per-view.
      11 pm
      The Bill as drafted allows the authority to reach its conclusion in a broad-brush commonsense way. The authority will have to ask itself whether the acquisition of the rights affected the broadcaster's practice, or whether he would have dropped out anyway. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham tries to narrow the criterion, in order to clarify it. The result might be more restrictive than he intends. If the broadcaster could satisfy the authority that financial reasons played even a small part in his decision not to cover the event, the authority would be obliged to maintain the pay-per-view prohibition—or it might read the Bill in that way—even though, in truth, the main motive for the broadcaster's decision had been a programming one and therefore the protection against pay-per-view would not be sensible. In trying to clarify the situation, my hon. Friend has narrowed the definition. The effect produced by his amendment might be the reverse of what he has in mind.
      Although the position is complicated, the practical implications of clause 14 are sensible and, on this point,
      808
      it provides the authority with greater flexibility to move in what my hon. Friend would regard as the right direction than would be provided under his amendment.
      Mr. Brinton: I have listened to my right hon. Friend's comments with great attention, and have been comforted by some of them. However, I must again make plain my anxiety that we are not allowing totally free and fair competition after the protected event has been taken out of the issue. That is what concerns my hon. Friends and myself in considering what may be, as my right hon. Friend says, the most complicated clause in the Bill.
      There are doubts—
      Mr. Richard Tracey: They are shared by other Conservative Members.
      Mr. Brinton: My amendment may be defective, but I hope that there is the ultimate chance that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 16

      POWER TO REQUIRE VISUAL AND SOUND RECORDS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 44, in page 16, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'Act' in line 34 and insert:
      `Expressions used in this section which are also used in the 1956 Act have the same meanings as in that'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 20

      ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 18, line 15, leave out
      `and a person shall not be qualified to be so appointed' and insert—
      '(2A) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as an auditor in pursuance of subsection (2) above'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 48, 175 and 179.
      Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for drawing attention to a deficiency, which the amendment corrects.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 48, in page 18, line 26, at end insert
      `but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners in the firm is qualified to be so appointed'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 22

      COPYRIGHT IN CABLE PROGRAMMES
      Amendment made: No. 49, in page 21, line 38, leave out from 'of' to 'to' in line 43 and insert
      `the said Act of 1984 or a service provided outside the United Kingdom which would be such a service if subsection (7) o f section 2 of that Act and references in subsection (1) of that section'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 21, line 46, at end insert'—
      '(12) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as if references in those provisions and in section 12(9) of

      809
      this Act to sounds included references to signals serving for the impartation of matter otherwise than in the form of sounds or visual images.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments.
      No. 161, in schedule 5, page 51, line 38, leave out `section 14(10)' and insert 'subsection (10) of section 14'.
      No. 162, in page 52, line 3, at end insert—
      '(8A) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(11) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as if references in those provisions and in section 12(9) of this Act to sounds included references to signals serving for the impartation of matter otherwise than in the form of sounds or visual images.".'.
      Mr. Hurd: These amendments fulfil an undertaking given in another place in response to points made by Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. They are designed to remedy a deficiency in the copyright protection available for computer software or data when this is either broadcast or included in cable programme services.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 23

      OTHER AMENDMENTS OF 1956 ACT
      Amendments made:
      No. 51, in page 22, leave out lines 1 to 3.
      No. 52, in page 22, line 9, leave out
      `subsections — "(8A) Subject to subsection (8B) below' and insert `subsection—"(8A)'.
      No. 53, in page 22, line 11, leave out
      `made for reception in any area'.
      No. 54, in page 22, leave out lines 15 to 22 and insert—
      '(a) if the programme is so included in pursuance of a requirement imposed under subsection (1) of section 13 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984; or
      (b) where the broadcast is made otherwise than in a DBS service (as defined in subsection (4) of that section) or an additional teletext service (as so defined), if and to the extent that it is made for reception in the area in which the cable programme service is provided."

      Exercise of jurisdiction of tribunal in relation to inclusion of broadcasts in cable programmes
      (3A) After section 27A of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
      27B.—(1) On a reference to the tribunal under this Part of this Act relating to licences to broadcast works or sound recordings for reception in any area, the tribunal shall exercise its powers under this Part of this Act so as to secure that the charges payable for the licences adequately reflect the extent to which the works or recordings will be included in pursuance of requirements imposed under section 13(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, in cable programme services provided in areas parts of which fall outside that area.
      (2) The preceding subsection shall have effect, with the necessary modifications, in relation to applications under this Part of this Act as it has effect in relation to references thereunder." '.
      No. 55, in page 22, line 26, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      No. 56, in page 22, line 28, leave out 'for reception in any area'.
      No. 57, in page 22, line 29, after second 'broadcast', insert
      `then, subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
      No. 58, in page 22, line 32, leave out 'provided in that area'.
      No. 59, in page 22, line 40, at end insert—
      '(3A) Subsection (3) above applies only—
      810

      (a)if the programme is included in the service in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 13(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984; or

      (b) if and to the extent that the broadcast is made for reception in the area in which the service is provided.".'.

      No. 60, in page 22, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 23.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 25

      OBSCENE PROGRAMMES IN SCOTLAND
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 25, leave out lines 10–14.
      This is another technical amendment to remove a definition that is now redundant.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 27

      AMENDMENT OF LAW OF DEFAMATION
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 27, line 21, leave out second 'the'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 68, 69, 186, 187 and 189.
      Mr. Hurd: These are technical amendments to the Bill's provisions on defamation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made:
      No. 68, in page 27, line 30, leave out 'under this Part'.
      No. 69, in page 27, line 34, leave out 'distribution or presentation' and insert 'inclusion'

    Clause 28

      COMPLAINTS OF UNJUST OR UNFAIR TREATMENT ETC.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 28, line 1, at beginning insert
      `Unless a right of reply has been offered and used within two weeks of the transmission of an item which gives rise to complaint by an individual, then'.
      This is an important matter. The Opposition are attached to the right of reply and would like to see it provided by newspapers and off-air television services. It is a basic human right for someone who is maligned, misrepresented or attacked in the media to have quick access to a right of reply to put over his point of view or a corrective argument. That is especially important in cable television.
      The advent of the cable network and the new structure provided for in the Bill gives us an opportunity to introduce a quick right of reply. It is relevant because the essence of cable is minority audiences and narrowcasting. It is a different, much more flexible and varied structure than the oligopoly of mass off-air channels and therefore a quicker and more immediate response is desirable.
      The Broadcasting Complaints Commission does a good job. The Opposition do not criticise it, but it is a slow and elaborate procedure that is over-elaborate for cable television for which something quicker and simpler is appropriate. We therefore commend to the cable companies the precedent that is offered by more than 30 newspapers in the United States which have set up their

      811
      own ombudsman to adjudicate on complaints against those papers and to give the right of reply where he thinks it relevant. The Washington Post pioneered the development. If the cable companies can be persuaded, as they would be by amendment No. 70, to offer the right of reply when they agree that a person has been misrepresented or maligned, that would short-circuit the elaborate procedure of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
      We offer amendment No. 70 because it would be quick, simple and an important precedent. We need to strengthen the individual against the media organisations.
      Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is devoted to the right of reply and here it is, popping up again. It would be odd to add it to the Bill when no such right exists in the broadcast channels. People have only one television set in a room and they would be pretty baffled if the procedures for complaint differed according to the origin of the programme coming out of the set.
      The Committee decided that, like broadcasting complaints, cable complaints should be made to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid some tribute to its work. I do not think that it would be sensible to add yet another layer of procedures for dealing with complaints on cable.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is appropriate to exercise my right of reply. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. The right of reply will be established and it will be set out in legislative form for the mass media. The amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to take an important step forward and to pioneer the right of reply in an area which is immediately relevant. The commission which deals with complaints about broadcasting is a slow-moving and cumbersome procedure for something as quick, flexible and immediate as cable television.
      We do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The loss is the Minister's because he could have established himself as an important pioneer instead of the legislative pressure cooker that is emerging as our debates on the Bill proceed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 28, line 33, leave out 'diffusion service' and insert
      'service to which this section applies which is'.
      No. 72, in page 28, line 39, leave out 'diffusion service' and insert
      'service to which this section applies'.
      No. 73, in page 28, line 41, leave out 'the diffusion' and insert 'that'.
      No. 74, in page 28, line 43, at end insert
      '(2) This section applies to any cable programme service and any service which would be such a service if subsection (7) of section 2 above were omitted'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 31

      ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PREMISES
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 29, line 6, after 'committed', insert
      'on any premises specified in the information'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 77.
      Mr. Hurd: The Opposition expressed concern in Committee about the powers of entry and search. I
      812
      considered the issue carefully and I have tried to meet their concern by tightening up the provisions. I hope that the Opposition are satisfied.
      Mr. Corbett: We are grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has tried to meet the concern that we expressed in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 77, in page 29, line 8, leave out
      'any premises specified in the information'
      and insert
      'those premises'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
      Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 29, line 8, at end insert
      'and that it is not excluded material or special procedure material as defined in section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984'.
      Having recently congratulated the Minister on the way in which he tried to meet the Opposition's concern in Committee, I must now say that we regret that he did not go far enough. We are talking about what appears to be a never-ending legion of persons who can force their way into our homes. That may be a rather dramatic remark, but there is great concern among many about those who can get warrants or obtain powers to permit them to enter our homes irrespective of whether we are on the premises.
      The subject of the amendment is someone who is suspected of being a pirate broadcaster, to use the well-known phrase. The Minister responded to a letter from the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians on 17 May, and when dealing with the clause he wrote that
      "it confers no powers of seizure or apparatus etc. and is valid only for one month."
      Does "etc." include documents? A warrant will be issued by a magistrate if he is satisfied, after hearing evidence on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under clause 3 has been or is being committed. That means that the premises are being or have been used for the purpose of a pirate broadcast. It is unclear from the right hon. Gentleman's letter to the ACTT whether, following that search, the police officer can remove items. The Minister's letter tells us that the clause
      "confers no powers of seizure of apparatus".
      In other words, the officer cannot get hold of the transmitter which is being used in an illegal manner, put it in his knapsack and run it down the road to the nick.
      My query is directed to "etc." There is a serious issue that underlies the amendment and there is some irony in the Opposition praying in aid the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The Minister, myself and many other hon. Members had the pleasure—I think that is the word—of serving on the Committees that considered both the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and this Bill.
      11.15 pm
      In the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill there is what is referred to as excluded material and special procedure material. To encourage the right hon. Gentleman to meet our point, we thought that it could be suitably encapsulated if we took those words from the Polic and Criminal Evidence Bill to try to restrict the powers of entry and search of premises in relation to pirate broadcasting under the terms of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill.
      It would, for example, be wrong that the police should be able to obtain a warrant for the search of premises, say, of an accountant or a doctor for evidence relating to an

      813
      offence under the Cable and Broadcasting Bill, when that power did not exist under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in regard to the definitions of excluded material and special procedure material. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on that point.
      Mr. Hurd: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, after all his experience, should have fallen into line with the concepts of special procedure material and excluded material. That is very gratifying. However, I do not think that they are really appropriate here.
      The word "etc." in my letter does include documents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that we are not talking here about seizure; there is no power of seizure in the clause. We are talking about a power to search and obtain evidence by observation rather than by taking away apparatus or documents. We are not talking here about police powers. If the police were by chance to be involved in the process, the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, when enacted, would apply. On the whole, we are talking here of the execution of warrants by the employees of the authority. I shall be moving an amendment on that point shortly. I think it would be a mistake to seek to apply the special statutory provisions about police powers to all those who may have a power of search.
      We are requiring the consent of a justice of the peace to a search through the warrant procedure and, before any prosecution can be brought, obviously the Director of Public Prosecutions must give his consent. We are not talking about a power which can be exercised arbitrarily, and I hope that cable piracy will be an infrequent occurrence. If the police were ever involved, the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill would apply. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: The question was really whether, under this legislation, greater powers are conferred on the police in regard to right of search than are conferred in respect of the commercial television contractors.
      Mr. Hurd: I do not know. I do not have the Broadcasting Acts at hand and I shall have to let the hon. Member know the answer to that question.
      Mr. Corbett: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and tempted as I was to call upon the legions of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are hovering about, ready to go into the Lobbies, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 79, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Authority'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 29, line 19, leave out from first 'or to `shall' in line 22 and insert
      `any legal proceedngs or of a report of any such proceedings, any information obtained by means of an exercise of powers conferred by this section'.
      The amendment is in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) in Committee. I hope he will feel that I have done my best to recognise it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32

      SCRIPTS AS EVIDENCE
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 29, line 37, leave out
      `an offence under section 24 or 26 above'
      and insert 'a relevant offence'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 82, 84, 86, 87 and 90.
      Mr. Hurd: These are technical amendments to ensure that similar enforcement provisions in relation to cable offences of obscenity and incitement to racial hatred apply in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made:
      No. 52, in page 30, line 7, after `below' insert—
      '"relevant offence" means an offence under section 26 above or—

      (a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, an offence under section 24 above; or

      (b) in relation to Scotland, an offence under section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 33

      POWER TO MAKE COPIES OF SCRIPTS AND RECORDS
      Amendments made:
      No. 84, in page 30, line 14, leave out
      'an offence under section 24 or 26 above'
      and insert 'a relevant offence'.
      No. 86, in page 30, line 17, leave out
      `an offence under the said section'
      and insert 'a relevant offence'.
      No. 87, in page 30, line 23, leave out 'police officer' and insert 'person'
      No. 90, in page 31, line 5, at end insert—
      '(6) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the reference to a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent having reasonable grounds there shall be substituted a reference to the procurator fiscal being satisfied, on receiving a report from a police officer, that there are reasonable grounds. '.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 34

      AVAILABILITY OF VISUAL AND SOUND RECORDS
      Amendment made: No. 91, in page 31, line 19, leave out from beginning to `Act' in line 20 and insert
      `Expressions used in this section which are also used in the 1956 Act have the same meanings as in that' .—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 35

      OFFENCES BY BODIES CORPORATE
      Amendment made:
      No. 92, in page 31, line 21, leave out Clause 35.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 36

      INTERPRETATION OF PART I
      Amendments made:
      No. 93, in page 31, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
      No. 94, in page 31, line 36, leave out from 'Part' to end of line 40.
      No. 95, in page 32, leave out lines 1 and 2.
      No. 96, in page 32, leave out lines 5 and 6.
      No. 97, in page 32, leave out lines 25 and 26.
      No. 98, in page 32, leave out lines 29 to 34.—[Mr.Hurd.]

    Clause 37

      PROVISION OF DBS SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 99, in page 33, line 9, leave out from 'the' to end of line 10 and insert '1981 Act'.
      No. 100, in page 33, line 33, at end insert—
      '"DBS teletext contractor" means a person whose contract as a teletext contractor gives him the right and duty to provide material for inclusion in teletext transmissions broadcast in a DBS service. '.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 38

      CONTRACTS FOR PROGRAMMES
      Mr. Gale: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in page 33, line 40, at beginning insert—
      '(a) Every contract between the IBA and a DBS programme contractor shall contain all such provisions as the IBA think necessary or expedient to ensure that nothing shall impair the supply of programmes provided by persons who are nationals or residents of countries within the European Economic Community or companies resident within the European Economic Community and otherwise than from persons of any of the following descriptions, namely a TV or DBS programme contractor or a body corporate under the control of a TV or DBS programme contractor.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 121, in clause 43, page 36, line 22, at end
      insert—
      `(c) contain all such provisions as the Board think necessary or expedient to ensure that a substantial proportion of the programmes provided by the programme provider shall be acquired by the programme provider from persons who are nationals or residents of countries within the European Economic Community or companies resident within the European Economic Community and otherwise than from persons of any of the following descriptions, namely a TV programme contractor or a body corporate under the control of a TV programme contractor or the BBC or a body corporate under the control of the BBC (or any other corporation participating in the programme provider.)'.
      Amendment No. 131, in clause 45, page 37, line 33, after '2001', insert
      `, provided that, as revised, the contracts between the IBA (the Authority) and the various programme contractors for the provision of television programmes shall contain such terms as are in the opinion of the IBA necessary or expedient to ensure the supply and inclusion of a proper proportion of programmes by companies or persons resident in the United Kingdom other than a television programme contractor and (or) a body corporate under the control of a programme contractor or the BBC or a body corporate under the control of the BBC.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 126, 128, 132 and 188.
      Mr. Gale: I apologise for the lateness of the hour at which we are discussing these amendments. I am afraid that this will take time, as I must do justice to the subject of the amendments, which was discussed in principle in Committee.
      The subject relates to the authority of the IBA beyond its give date and the responsiblity which, if the extension is granted by the House, will be placed on the authority.
      816
      In particular, we are concerned with the extension of the genuine independent programme-making market into markets which are closed to it at present.
      Amendments Nos. 121 and 138 are complementary to amendment No. 131 and extend the provisions in amendment No. 131 and the safeguards in that amendment for satellite television.
      Support for amendment No. 131 comes from most of the Conservative Members who served on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill Committee. In view of the Opposition's statements on quotas of British production, especially those of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), I should like to think that they, too, support these amendments.
      I must make it plain that I am not asking for a quota. We are asking that access should be given to the free markets to genuinely independent producers. I shall make it plain in a moment that that falls within the remit of the clause and of the IBA.
      Mr. John Golding: If the hon. Gentleman intends to press this to a Division, it is important for him to tell us, so that we know how seriously to take the arguments.
      Mr. Gale: The argument is extremely serious. Whether or not I press it to a Division depends upon the answer that I receive from my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Can the hon. Gentleman give us a rough idea?
      Mr. Gale: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a rough idea. It might depend on whether he is prepared to support the stand against restrictive practices by the trade unions, such as the one to which both he and I belong.
      It has been customary in the debate to declare interests. I have no commercial interest in the Bill. I have an interest as a member of the NUJ and of the ACTT. Until my arrival in the House, I was a producer of television prgrammes and a director.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am not quite sure of the hon. Gentleman's point. He began with praise the genuinely independent producer and went on to attack trade unions. What exactly is the hon. Gentleman talking about? What is the catch? If he wants our support, he must tell us what he is doing. Is he providing for the production companies which do not have a full union complement and which do not have an agreement with trade unions? Is that his intention?
      Mr. Gale: If the hon. Gentleman allowed me to expand my argument for more than a minute and a half at a time, he would probably find out exactly what he wants to know.
      From now on, the IBA should defend independent British production, and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland production as well, in a way that it has not done so far. In the past, the IBA has defended the monopoly interests of the programme contractors. Those of us who have worked in television and have produced and directed programmes are aware of the unholy alliance between the ACTT and the National Association of Theatrical Television and Kine Employees, representing the craft unions, and the Independent Television Companies Association management. Those of us who worked in those industries know the industrial problems have been solved by huge pay settlements and gross manning levels.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is making allegations, and he made allegations in Committee as well. Will he now care to correct his statement in Committee about Yorkshire Television and its agreement with the trade unions, which was lambasted in a letter to him by the managing director of Yorkshire Television?
      Mr. Gale: I was coming to that point. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman does not have my response to that letter or the response to that response which I shall quote for him.
      We can now have the crocodile tears from the Opposition who, in union terms, have sought to defend arguably the most damaging single element that hits British independent programme production—restrictive practices.
      I referred in Committee to a deal done by Yorkshire television. I said:
      "Yorkshire Television has done a deal with the union there, and given an undertaking not to finance outside production. I gather that the union members there will produce all the material financed by Yorkshire for Yorkshire Television." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 June 1984; c. 255.]
      I said that I would put Mr. Paul Fox's response on the record. He replied in a letter:
      "this is not so. No undertakings of this sort have been given."
      Do I stand corrected? The managing director went on:
      "As a responsible employer of television production staff, YTV has assured its employees that all Yorkshire Television programmes produced by Yorkshire Television and carrying the Yorkshire symbol are serviced by Yorkshire Television staff."
      That undertaking made no reference to the financing of productions. We have established that an undertaking has been given by the management of the company — I should like the House to understand that this is not a vendetta against Yorkshire television — to the unions involved in that company that it will produce all the material carrying the Yorkshire television symbol.
      The managing director of Yorkshire television continued:
      "As a matter of business policy, and unconnected with the undertaking to staff YTV does not wish to provide finance for its competitors: we are not in the business of helping others to succeed at our expense."
      Where is the great union between the independent television contractors and the genuinely independent television programme makers? Paul Fox, the managing director of one of the major companies in this country, described them as his "competitors". He said that he is not in the business of helping them to compete. What encouragement can there be in that statement for the genuinely independent programme producer? Paul Fox continued:
      "Nevertheless, as a member"—
      I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) finds this letter interesting, because it is the one that he wanted to hear—
      "of the ITV broadcasting system, YTV is genuinely interested in purchasing independent productions — be they British, Commonwealth or American—in a free market at the going market rate".
      A "free market" is the market dictated by the Independent Television Companies Association. It is a market that buys independent productions at a fifth or a tenth of production costs.
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who knows something about this profession, knows as well as I do that the bought-in programmes are financed not by independent television company money but by independent producers
      818
      who may or may not be able to sell their products. There is no money up front because of the undertakings given to the craft unions within the television industry. The staffing levels on the studio floor are far too high and the hon. Member is aware that genuinely independent companies could not afford those gross overmanning levels.
      11.30 pm
      If the IBA's life is to be extended, I believe that independent producers must be able to compete on equal terms in the kind of market place to which the managing director of Yorkshire television referred. He has a position within the Independent Television Companies Association. My criticism is not directed at Yorkshire Television. The managing director of that company has at least been kind enough to put in writing and allow me to explain to the House the practices that most of the major companies pursue.
      The aim of the amendment is to stimulate British independent production. As I have said before, we do not seek to dictate a quota. I do not believe that the amendment will damage the independent contractors' companies' interest in any way.
      London Weekend television, TV South, Thames television, Central television and Yorkshire television have a hugh investment in modern technology. Some of it was made recently following the award of new franchises. In the case of TV South that was a brave investment in a new studio complex. Those studios should be used, but they should not be used by too many people. They should be used to make more British, independent programmes. There is no reason why—the independent companies are aware of this—they should not hire their facilities and their investment in technology to genuinely independent producers and their genuinely independent staffs.
      With the advent of cable I believe that we have the opportunity to generate British independent production. The major companies have so far failed to assist that generation. The IBA has also failed, and that is why I tabled the amendment.
      Mr. Brinton: Channel 4.
      Mr. Gale: It has been left, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) says, to Channel 4 to give such stimulus as has been offered, but we both know that that is not enough.
      Mr. Bermingham: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member, but does he agree that if the cable vision companies are buying cheap foreign material there will be no incentive for the independent producers to make home-based programmes? The way to ensure that independent producers produce what we all want is to protect their right to supply cable television.
      Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has given me the opportunity to clarify a point. The amendment is related directly to broadcast television. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I was the first in Committee to hammer home the fact that we are dealing with cable, but this clause deals with the extension of the life of a broadcasting authority, not the Cable Authority. I should be happy to discuss the cable aspects later, as we did in Committee. The clause deals with the extension of the life of the IBA.
      I ask my right hon. Friend to accept what I believe are reasoned and reasonable amendments; and to serve notice

      819
      on those who wish to restrain growth that the days of restrictive practices are numbered. We are asking not for a fixed quota but for what the managing director of Yorkshire television rightly referred to in his letter—the right to compete in the marketplace on equal terms. I ask my right hon. Friend for his support. I ask him to accept the amendments relating to DBS and to tell the IBA that it should exercise its authority and end restrictive practices within broadcast television.
      Mr. Freud: I listened with care and sympathy to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), especially when he said that this was not a quota. Amendment No. 131 states:
      "to ensure the supply and inclusion of a proper proportion of programmes."
      If that is not a quota, what is? The hon. Gentleman's Government no longer insist on the quota of handicapped and disabled people who used to have to be employed by industry, but pursue the economics of the market place. Yet the hon. Gentleman demands
      "the supply and inclusion of a proper proportion"
      of people who may not have anything worthwhile to sell. That is my only point.
      Mr. Mitchell: the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) should stop foisting on the House his past experience in commercial television, and the vendettas and hatreds he accumulated while working there. The process may be of therapeutic value to him, but it has little relevance to the legislation.
      If the hon. Gentleman seeks the support of the Opposition for a series of amendments to strengthen independent producers, he has gone about it in a subtle and carefully calculated fashion by launching a direct onslaught on the Opposition, trade unions and working practices, which have endured for a long time and have been found satisfactory by the companies and the unions in commercial television. I do not understand his strategy, but I offer him the opportunity, if he seriously wants our support, to tell us that it is not merely a union-bashing measure as he presented it. We have 204 Labour Members sitting around in various parts of the House and they are eager to come and vote on the amendments. If he will assure us now that it is not a union-bashing measure the word can go out and he can have their support. I suspect, however, that he will not give us that assurance.
      I am aware of the unanimous vote of confidence that the ACTT shop at Thames television gave the hon. Gentleman when he stood at the Northfield by-election, which warned the electors that, from its experience of him, it might be a mistake to vote for him, and warned them of his antagonism towards unions in commercial television.
      I have no great enthusiasm for Yorkshire television. I spearheaded with the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) a workers' bid for the contract in 1980, and since then I have not been invited to appear on Yorkshire television. I feel in an anomalous position defending an organisation with which I have such a relationship.
      Mr. Golding: If I could find my hon. Friend an independent producer in Yorkshire, would he co-operate?
      Mr. Mitchell: These days I have a better face for radio than commercial television. As I failed disastrously as a disc jockey and as a television presenter, I doubt whether the market would be large.
      820
      The existing staffing arrangements and working relationships with the trade unions in commercial television are of long standing, have endured we and provided effectively for the maintenance of quality and good production, which would not have been available elsewhere. Although there are always niggles about whether to take this production assistant or this second lighting assistant on that overseas trip, the staffing levels are nearly always necessary, and produce better programmes and television. The annoyances are temporary and short-lived. The harmonious industrial climate in commercial television provides good, high-quality production, which is worth maintaining.
      Therefore, when the managing director of Yorkshire television tells the hon. Member for Thanet, North that he does not want competitors, that is exactly what it is about. Why should Yorkshire television encourage people to compete with it to provide programmes on its network? Where is the commercial logic in that? It comes not from a desire to maintain union staffing levels or to suppress independent production, but from a desire to remain dominant in the area. It is an obvious capitalist motive.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We have some respect for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), but he must not pull our legs at this late hour and try to suggest that all is lovely, and that the only objective of the unions is to preserve the quality of broadcasting. In that context, will he help the House to understand why it took so long for Britain to have electronic news gathering?
      Mr. Mitchell: Clearly because the unions wished to negotiate the best deal that they could. That is in their interests and it is an obvious thing to do. The manning levels were considerably reduced from those previously prevailing in the film industry. The unions have accepted logical manning levels. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) wishes to reduce manning to the level of a Japanese film crew that I saw recently, which consisted of one man carrying the camera, which had a microphone sticking out of it, and asking the questions. Fortunately, it was daylight, because in his back-pack he had a hand basher to illuminate the scene as well.
      We are concerned about standards and quality of production. There is a developing scope for independent production on Channel 4, and it is welcome, but this amendment does not secure that. It offers a guaranteed quota to independent producers, provided that they can force down costs by bashing the unions, reducing manning levels to the minimum, and thereby reducing quality to the minimum, irrespective of the quality of what they produce. No sane Opposition would back such an amendment. The hon. Member for Thanet, North has gone over the top such is his peculiar hatred of trade unions in the television industry. On that ground, I offer him no support, but some hostility from the Opposition.
      Mr. Golding: I was not persuaded by the speech of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I was even less persuaded of his case when I read the amendment, which requires that a substantial number of programmes must be provided by the people. What if those programmes are no good and are not the sort of programmes that people wish to watch?

      821
      I risk losing the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who stands for quality in all things. I stand for entertainment. When I switch on the television I do not want to see a "quality" programme; I want to see a programme that amuses or instructs me. I mostly want to see a programme that amuses or delights me. I am interested in programmes made for the viewer. I am the stuff that capitalist programmes are made of; I am the customer. What upsets me is that, as ever, the do-gooders say, "Perhaps the programme companies are making programmes that people want to watch. We are making programmes that we want to show and we will force them upon the IBA and the programme companies." That does not seem to be reasonable. Why, when I switch on my television, should the programmes of the hon. Member for Thanet, North and his intellectual mates be thrust upon me? That is the question of the hour, however late it may be. Why should I as a viewer have to suffer the desire of the hon. Gentleman's friends to do good on this earth?
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Gorst: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is in order to give employment to him and his mates.
      Mr. Golding: As so often, I fail to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the hon. Member for Thanet, North is indulging in special pleading, I accept that.
      Professionally, I always admire an argument that can bring together high principle and self-interest. That is what the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing. He and his mates want to make money, their reputations and to force their programmes upon us, but we do not necessarily want them.
      One thing is certain— if the companies must take these programmes, they will have to pay for them, because the hon. Gentleman and his mates will not give them away for nothing. If the hon. Gentleman sells them, ultimately the consumer will pay through advertising.
      The hon. Member for Thanet, North has tried to pull a fast one. He is asking us to accept the amendment moved in the name of freedom, when it should have been moved in the name of elitism and pecuniary self-interest.
      Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is anxious to encourage independent production. So am I, so are the Government, and so we have proved. The independent sector is a lively, enjoyable and low-cost part of the industry. It has done well, perhaps largely because of the way in which Channel 4 and the fourth channel in Wales were established by the Government. Naturally, this sector is looking for further openings in the future. My hon. Friend's amendments open up possibilities in three areas.
      Amendment No. 131 deals with terrestrial franchises. The obligation which my hon. Friend suggests is not one which the IBA could unilaterally impose on terrestrial contractors during the current terrestrial franchises. The programme balance for ITV is at present a matter for contractual agreement between the IBA and the companies. Given their success so far, we hope that opportunities will appear for independent producers to get a showing on ITV. The ITV companies have indicated to
      822
      the Independent Programme Producers Association those areas of ITV programming where independent contributions might well be welcome and successful.
      My hon. Friend's amendment proposes a major change in the way in which ITV operates. Such a change would need a good deal of consultation, including consultation with the IBA.
      My hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the structure, will agree that the possible consequences for individual companies would vary. Each company has different characteristics. Some of the big ones would perhaps be able to give space in their schedules to independent producers. Some of the smaller ones might not be able to do so without undermining their own production base. It is an idea which would need a good deal of further thought and consultation.
      The second opening which my hon. Friend proposes is in the scheme for IBA or independent commercial DBS for which we are providing in clause 37. Here there is no inside track for the ITV companies. There is no suggestion in the Bill and no thought in the Government's mind that when the time comes for the IBA to activate this part of the Bill and provide a purely commercial DBS service, there will be any reason why there should be any advantage conferred on the ITV companies. The independent producers have a strong natural position. I do not think that they have any need for a preferential position, and I do not think that they would ask for one. They would be able to compete at that stage with natural advantages. There they have an equality of opportunity, which is what my hon. Friend desires, and the Bill does nothing to preclude that.
      The position of the joint DBS project, which is the third opening which the amendments discuss, is different, as the House discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. The prospective participants in the joint venture expect to purchase programmes from independents. All have said that they attach importance to the provision of British material for DBS programming, and they recognise the impressive contribution which independent producers have made to Channel 4. The BBC, the IBA and ITCA would expect the independent producers to secure a due degree of access to DBS programming provided that they were able to supply satisfactory material at competitive prices. That will be crucial for a venture as high risk as DBS will be. Therefore if my hon. Friend is right about the ability of the independent sector to produce competitive programmes, there will definitely be room for them in the joint project.
      Mr. Gale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that at least one of my arguments is that at the moment there is a cartel? ITCA is buying from independent producers but not at the market rate because it has effectively a ring. It can buy in at its own price, and that is in no way the market price. It is that that we wish to prevent happening in satellite television.
      Mr. Hurd: I understand that, and that is one reason why we believe that it is necessary to do more than simply rest on the undertakings that I have just described.
      We believe that there is a legitimate public interest in monitoring the sources of programmes supplied for the joint project to see how they develop, having in mind the point made by my hon. Friend. That is why we tabled amendment No. 128, which will place the Satellite

      823
      Broadcasting Board under a duty to include information in its annual report on this matter. We are even more specific, because the amendment will require the board to include in its annual report an account of the extent to which the joint project programmes have been supplied by persons other than those participating in the consortium. Clause 44 (1B) defines those participating as including holding companies, subsidiaries or associates of the participants. For the purpose of the clause, all other programme suppliers will count as independent producers.
      I have been through the three openings which my hon. Friend's amendments describe. I have shown how the first requires further study and consultation, how the second is knocking at an open door because for the purely commercial DBS there is no favoured position for the ITV companies, and how, thirdly, the Government amendment makes it clear that it is not simply a matter of noting assurances which have been given but that there will be a duty on the board to report to the public and to the House on the extent to which independents get a look in in the joint project. Taken together, those steps show a realistic measure of support for the independent sector and constitute a substantial step forward.
      Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his assurances on DBS and the joint project. Independent producers will find a great deal of comfort in the clarification offered, particularly on the joint project. I take all the points that he has made about Government amendment No. 128. However, I am much less happy with his comments on the future of independent production within the independent programme contractors as they exist at the moment. He was good enough to say that he felt that amendment was not possible during their current terrestrial franchises. I should like to think that perhaps at the very least the IBA will take on board the attitudes of the big companies towards genuinely independent producers when called upon to renew those franchises. That at least is possible. My right hon. Friend was also good enough to say that he would give further thought and consideration and consultation to the matter and I am grateful for that.
      The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said that I was suggesting a quota system. He is right in a sense. I was trying to define the difference between a quota and a fixed quota, but I did not do so clearly enough. I take the point that was made and acknowledge it. The clause would implement a quota but not a fixed quota. That is important because the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) asked why he should be made to watch programmes that were of bad quality. It is interesting that a fellow trade unionist should assume bad quality as a result of independent production. The fact of the matter is that no company would be compelled to buy, and were it not of good enough quality it would not. We are not engaged upon special pleading. We have been seeking free access to a free market which at present is denied us.
      Mr. Golding: That is the nub of the problem for the hon. Gentleman. Let us postulate that all the programmes made by independent producers are of low quality, which is possible. Under his proposal they would have to be shown whether they were bad quality, wanted by the general public, or whatever. That is the essence of a quota, whether a fixed quota or a vairable quota. That is the
      824
      problem that he has. Once it is said that some have to be shown, one has to determine how to ensure that those that are made are either wanted by the public or are of a certain quality.
      Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that There is sufficient good independent programme production around to satisfy at the very least the meansest of quotas, and I contend that that is being bought at the moment by a cartel at a below-market price. I am seeking, and shall continue to seek, the production of that material. financed by the independent companies and bought in at a market price, not a sub-market price, and using the facilities provided by the independent companies.
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to long-term practices. It is exactly those long-term practices that I and many other programme makers have found abhorrent. I cast no aspersions whatever on the quality or ability of my former colleagues at Thames Television who were excellent and did a splendid job. Had we been allowed the opportunity to do so, given the facilities and the staff that we had, if the crewing levels had been lower, we could have made more British programmes with the same people, the same technology and the same money. It is as simple as that.
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is well aware of the union arguments surrounding the introduction of electronic news gathering in this country years behind our competitors. He is equally well aware of the debate that is going on as to whether or not the Olympics should be shown in this country, which bears on whether or not one extra production assistant should fly to America. It is to such restrictive practices that I have been referring. The hon. Member is also aware that all the industry would benefit if such practices were eliminated. We are not looking for fewer jobs, but for more jobs, performed more efficiently, leading to more British production.
      12 midnight
      I have to refer to this next point because I believe that it was a personal slight. The Member — I hope honourable — for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred to pecuniary self-interest. I have already said that I have none. I find it saddening that Labour Members, who have made such play throughout the debates on the Bill on the production of British material, have chosen not to support an amendment that would, perhaps, enhance the quantity of British production in cable television. Without that support, there is no point in forcing the amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 39

      CHARGES FOR RECEPTION OF PROGRAMMES
      Amendments made, No. 102, in page 34, line 3, after `programme', insert `or teletext'.
      No. 103, in page 34, line 5, after 'him', insert
      `or transmissions containing material so provided'.
      No. 104, in page 34, line 6, leave out 'transmit the programmes' and insert
      'broadcast the programmes or transmissions'.
      No. 105, in page 34, line 10, leave out from 'Where' to 'nothing' in line 11 and insert
      `under the power conferred by subsection (1) above the IBA broadcast programmes or transmissions in such a form as is mentioned in that subsection'.
      No. 106, in page 34, line 13, at end insert 'or transmissions'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 40

      RENTAL PAYMENTS
      Amendments made, No. 107, in page 34, line 25, after first 'contractors', insert
      '(other than DBS teletext contractors)'.
      No. 108, in page 34, line 26, at beginning insert
      'only in relation to persons who are DBS teletext contractors but are not TV or DBS programme contractors; or (v).'.
      No. 109, in page 34, line 27, leave out 'and (iii)' and insert '(iii) and (iv)'.
      No. 110, in page 34, leave out lines 28 to 33.
      No. 111, in page 34, line 36, after 'to', insert '(a)'.
      No. 112, in page 34, line 38, after 'contractors)', insert
      'or (b) persons who are DBS teletext contractors,'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 41

      FlNANCES OF IBA
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 34, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 35 and insert
      'For the purposes of this section'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 148.
      Mr. Hurd: These amendments make minor adjustments to clause 41, which provides for the way that DBS services are to be incorporate into the IBA's finances. This caused some discussion in Committee, and these amendments provide clarification.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendments made, No. 114, in page 35, leave out line 8 and insert
      'shall be regarded as separate parts of that branch.
      (1A) Except in so far as the Secretary of State on the application of the IBA otherwise directs, for each part of the television branch of their undertaking, it shall be the duty of the IBA so to conduct their affairs as to secure that their revenues from that part become at the earliest possible date, and thereafter continue, at least sufficient—

      (a)to meet all sums properly chargeable to revenue account in respect of that part of that branch (including sums which, for the purposes of that part, are required for the repayment of loans and interest thereon, for provision for depreciation and for the maintenance of so much of the reserve fund for that branch as is attributable to that part); and

      (b)to make provision towards, and as soon as practicable for, necessary capital expenditure for the purposes of that part of that branch.'

      No. 115, in page 35, leave out lines 13 and 14.

    Clause 42

      THE BOARD
      Mr. Gorst: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 35, line 23, leave out 'six' and insert 'nine'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 151, in page 46, line 34, leave out 'All the' and insert 'Three' and amendment No. 154, in page 47, line 6, leave out paragraph 3.
      Mr. Gorst: This is an important issue. The purpose of this group of amendments is to leaven the composition of the Satellite Broadcasting Board so that, instead of an equality of BBC and IBA members, there are also three independent members, one of whom would be the chairman. I shall not repeat the arguments that I used in Committee to advance this proposition. I referred to the possibility of any conflict or disagreements, even among reasonable men, which would not be solved by equality of membership. Sometimes, even reasonable men can be uncompromising and intractable.
      There are other arguments. First, why is there no spokesman on the new board for the new force? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will argue that the IBA representatives will fill that description, but the new force that is appointed — on the final say-so of the Home Secretary—may not be the first, second, third or fourth choice of the IBA, which will recommend them to the Home Secretary, but will come from some other group. That force will not feel that it is well represented on the SBB by the IBA representatives. That is the first reason why I think that the elements involved should include an independent section.
      Equally, there is another argument, to which I referred in passing in Committee. I shall spell it out in slightly more detail now. Clause 42(3) says that it is the duty of the IBA to supply services. I asked in Committee why that had to be a duty rather then a permissive power. No answer was given and it is important to understand what the consequences of that obligation may be.
      What will happen will have an effect on members of the IBA who may be appointed to the SBB. They will have a contract to supply services to the SBB, but under schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, they are precluded from taking part in IBA proceedings if they have a declarable interest in a contract, which means that having got a contract with the SBB, they will be excluded from taking part in any IBA discussions about that contract.
      How, therefore, can those people be full members of the IBA and of the SBB? In short, how can they fulfil two conflicting statutory duties? They will have to be part time, at least in one of their statutory duties. There will be a gap, presumably in the SBB, on some occasions and the need for independent members may arise when matters relating to the supply of services are discussed.
      But it does not stop there. The status of the staff of the IBA will be changed; to whom will their first allegiance lie if they are seconded to work for the SBB? Would the board have first call on their loyalty if it were in conflict with the IBA on, say, a matter of policy, or would it be vice versa?
      My right hon. Friend the Minister must consider how to resolve such matters. The answer may be not to make it mandatory on the IBA to supply services but to leave it to informal agreements, in which case the problem of contracts and the difficulties to which I have referred will not arise.
      Nevertheless, such problems and the possibility of disputes and disagreements require a set-up analogous to that of the Manpower Service Commission, ACAS or the Health and Safety Executive, which have two main sides

      827
      involved and two or three independent members who form the balance. The need for an independent element on the SBB is unanswerable and I hope that my right hon. Friend, who said in Committee that he would look again at this matter, but whose glance at it has not borne fruit in the shape of an amendment, will have something reassuring to say.
      Mr. Hurd: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said, I promised to look at this matter further and I have done so, but we are not persuaded that the change that he suggests is necessary.
      It is common ground that we need a separate broadasting authority for the joint project, because its programmes will be neither the BBC's nor the IBA's, but there will be a need for a regulatory authority and we have suggested the formation of the SBB, with a limited life and function.
      I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and his main argument for introducing a third element into the SBB is that there is likely to be friction and difficulty between the BBC and the IBA unless there are, in the terms of his amendment, three people, acting as umpires.
      To some extent, that is to misunderstand the regulatory function of the board. Many of the functions that my hon. Friend mentioned in Committee will not be performed by the board but will be the responsibility of the joint venture company. It is on the joint venture company that the independent participants, whom we have keenly insisted should have a place, will need to be and want to be represented. Such matters as raising capital, funding debts, allocation of peak-time programming between the participants and others that affect responsibility for the success or failure of the venture, including the conduct of negotiations with trade unions, are not matters for the SBB but for the joint venture company on which there will be a different form of representation.
      The board's responsibility will be to supervise the standards of the programmes provided by the consortium. It will need to harmonise the regulatory practices of the BBC and the IBA and build on their experience. I see no reason, in those circumstances, why the board should be deadlocked. It can determine its own rules of procedure and give the chairman a casting vote. An independent chairman might increase the risk of the BBC and the IBA people on the board representing their sectional interests instead of working together. The will to work together is clear.
      My hon. Friend raised a point that has caused us some difficulty as to the nature of the obligation to provide services. I draw his attention to the fact that the request must be reasonable and that the services must be supplied on commercial terms. I do not think that there will be a problem about conflicting duties, which my hon. Friend foresaw, for members of the IBA. The duty in the Broadcasting Act 1981 is concerned with IBA members who have a personal interest in a contract that is being discussed. The IBA members of the SBB will not have such a personal interest as they will be acting for a board that has been set up under statute to regulate the joint project. I am advised, therefore, that that problem will not arise.
      The Chairman of the BBC and of the IBA are keen to co-operate.
      Mr. Gorst: Why is it not possible to rely on section 3(3) of the 1981 Act which says that
      828
      "the powers of the Authority shall extend to the carrying on of such businesses and the doing of such things as arise out of the other activities of the Authority"?
      That would give all that is required of the IBA without the need for that part of clause 42 to which exception is taken.
      Mr. Hurd: Is my hon. Friend referring to the provision of services?
      Mr. Gorst: Yes.
      Mr. Hurd: Surely it is sensible to pick that up in the Bill. In the light of the explanation that I have given, I do not think that the mischief that my hon. Friend fears could arise. We gave some thought to this point and decided that it was sensible to use the present form rather than a permissive one, which might not have the necessary strength.
      Bearing in mind the limited and purely regulatory nature of the board, it is sensible to organise it in this way and to rely on the pooling of experience between the two existing regulatory agencies.
      Mr. Gorst: In view of my right hon. Friend's reasonableness, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, although I am not satisfied with the reply.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 43

      PROVISION OF PROGRAMMES
      Mr. Gorst: I beg to move amendment No 117. in page 35, line 39 leave out
      'the Secretary of State after consultation with'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No 118, in page 35, line 40 leave out `Secretary of State' and insert 'Satellite Broadcasting Board'.
      Mr. Gorst: Amendment No 117 removes the Home Secretary from direct involvement in the choice of approval of people involved in satellite programme provision. I believe that amendment No 118 is an equally acceptable alternative. I mean no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister or to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary by saying that it is better to leave politicians of whatever political persuasion out of contact with the selection of programme contractors.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I find myself in such strong agreement with the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that I have deserted the workers' co-operative that is running the Opposition Front Bench and returned to the Back Benches to express the strength of that agreement.
      The case for amendment No. 118, is exactly the same as that for amendment No. 117. It seems unreasonable that the Secretary of State should take part in a decision on who should participate in the programming company for direct broadcasting by satellite. First, unlike the IBA, he does not have the staff or the expertise to carry on the necessary research into the intentions, backing and prospectuses of the competing groups that want to take part in the programme company. Secondly, such detailed research would be done much better by the IBA.
      Thirdly, it would be wrong for the Minister to decide what is, in effect, a question of political patronage, because one of two things can happen. The expenses may

      829
      be huge, and profits small. I am told that there is a break-even point of two million viewers. The financial risks of participation in the project are considerable. If the financial risks do not pay off the Home Secretary will be, in a sense, in debt to those who have been persuaded to take part in the programme company in much the same way as the Home Office found itself in debt to those who had been persuaded to bid for the 11 contracts in the cable franchises, who have had to be compensated, as we have seen this evening.
      If DBS is not successful, the Home Secretary will find himself in debt to those who participate in it. If it is successful, he will be accused of handing out rich pickings to his friends. Either situation is undesirable. It would be much better for the matter to be in the hands of the Satellite Broadcasting Board established by clause 42. That would be a much more straightforward procedure.
      Mr. Hurd: These amendments would take from my right hon. and learned Friend the responsibility for approving the programme provider, and give that responsibility to an independent body. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) choose slightly different independent bodies.
      Involving the IBA in this field presents a difficulty. In due course the IBA will provide its own DBS services, under clause 37 et sequens. When the IBA has those DBS powers—quite different from those of the joint project —it will be entirely independent in its selection of programme contractors just as it is in the award of the terrestrial franchises. Those services will compete with the joint project. It would be odd and unfair to ask the authority to decide the composition of the programme provider for the joint project, which will in due course be competing with the IBA's own services.
      The joint venture is to be divided equally between the BBC and the private sector, each taking 50 per cent. The IBA and the BBC would both be placed in an awkward position if the IBA was given the final say on the nature and extent of the BBC's participation.
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby backs the other horse—the SBB. The answer lies in the importance that my right hon. and learned Friend attaches to allowing companies other than the established broadcasters to participate. We have insisted from the beginning that there should be the very important third element. The joint project should not consist simply of the BBC and such ITV companies as wish to take part. Rather than leave the final decision on participation either to the IBA or to the SBB —which we have just agreed should be composed of members of the IBA and the BBC—we prefer to leave the final decision with my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Before taking that decision, my right hon. and learned Friend will receive considerable help from the IBA on at least one of the hon. matters which the Member for Great Grimsby has raised. We are not setting up machinery in the Home Office to deal with these issues for we shall rely on the help and experience of the IBA while reserving to my right hon. and learned Friend the final decision. I referred in Committee to the expressions of serious interest that the IBA had received—it was then the latest news —and the way in which it was scrutinising them, and I shall not repeat myself now for the situation remains the same. We are going ahead with the procedure that we have
      830
      set out and we consider it to be a good method. Accordingly, we think it reasonable to ask the House to approve it. We think that it fits the circumstances rather better than the two options that have been presented.
      Mr. Gorst: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I believe that the House will regret giving these powers to the Secretary of State of the day, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 36, line 9, leave out from second 'that' to end of line 12 and insert—

      '(a) no person who is a disqualified person, and no body corporate over which a disqualified person has control, becomes or continues as the programme provider (whether alone or in partnership); and

      (b) no body corporate in which a disqualified person participates becomes or continues as the sole programme provider.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 120, in page 36, line 11, after 'participate', insert 'directly or indirectly' and Government amendments Nos. 122 and 125.
      Mr. Hurd: The amendments are designed to ensure that the power to disqualify a person as a programme provider does not operate more stringently in relation to one form of programme providing organisation than another.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 122, in page 36, leave out lines 30 to 34.—[Mr. Hurd.]
      Mr. Gorst: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 37, line 5, at end insert
      `but does not include any aspect relating to the nature and characteristics of the programming that has been or may be broadcast by that corporate body.'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the Home Secretary of the day from engineering the dismissal of a programme provider whose programmes he found not to be of his taste, politics or standards. The possibility of an amendment to exclude programming as a consideration was discussed in Committee and my right hon. Friend said that he would consider again the necessity to introduce such an amendment. There seemed to be some doubt whether programming even arose as a purpose within the definition in the appropriate clause.
      Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Home Secretary of the day would not expect to be able to get rid of one of the members of a consortium, or whatever the new force will turn out to be, whose programming is taken exception to for political or any other reasons?
      Mr. Hurd: As I understand it, my hon. Friend is trying to protect my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary from having to make awkward decisions. He is trying also to prevent any successor from taking tyrannical and arbitrary decisions. He is right to have those two objectives. I hope that I can give him the assurance that he is seeking.
      The relevant phrase is
      "nature and charcteristics of, that body",
      which is to be found in the clause. That is concerned with matters other than programme content. The clause gives my right hon. and learned Friend the power to withdraw his approval of the programme provider if there is
      "any change affecting participants in, or the nature and characteristics of, that body".

      831
      I am advised that that could not be construed as giving the Home Secretary power or any say, even indirectly, over programmes. Schedule 4 makes it clear that it is the function of the board and the board alone to have a say over programming.
      The phrase
      "nature and characteristics of, that body"
      describes the corporate activities and not the quality of its programmes. It describes the owners of the company, the nature of its business and the type of matters that are authorised in the articles of association, which set out the aims and objectives of the company. It is reasonable that that power should exist over that aspect of the programme provider, but I accept that it should not apply to the content of the programmes.
      Mr. Gorst: This is the last amendment that I have tabled and at last I am able to say that I am completely satisfied with my right hon. Friend's reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 125 in page 37, line 5, at end insert—
      '(8) For the purposes of this section and section 44 below a person participates in a body corporate if (whether alone or jointly with one or more other persons, and whether directly or through nominees) he holds or is beneficially entitled to shares, or possesses voting power, in the body corporate:. — [Mr.Hurd.]

    Clause 44

      APPLICATION OF 1981 ACT AND OTHER ENACTMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 126, in page 37, line 6, at the beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.
      No. 127, in page 37, line 9, leave out 'and TV
      programme' and insert
      'TV programme contractors and teletext'
      No. 128, in page 37, line 10, at end insert—
      '(1A) In its application to the Board, subsection (2) of section 43 of the 1981 Act (Annual reports) shall have effect as if it required the report for any financial year to include an account of the extent to which the programmes broadcast by the Board have been supplied to the programme provider by persons other than those mentioned in subsection (1B) below.
      (1B) The persons referred to in subsection (1A) above are—

      (a) where a body corporate is the programme provider in partnership with other person, an associate of that body corporate, a person who has control over that body corporate and a body corporate which is under control of such a person; and

      (b) where a body corporate is the sole programme provider, a person who participates in that body corporate, an associate of such a person and a body corporate which is under the control of such a person.'.

      No. 129, in page 37, line 20, leave out
      'enactments (other than provisions of the 1981 Act)'
      and insert
      'other enactments (including provisions of this Act)'.
      No. 130, in page 37, line 21, leave out 'or TV
      programme' and insert
      'TV programme contractors or teletext' .—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 45

      EXTENSION OF DURATION OF IBA's FUNCTION
      Amendment made: No. 132, in page 37, line 33, at end insert—
      832
      '(2) In subsection (5) of that section (power of Secretary of State to extend the duration of the function of the IBA) for the words "any date not later than 31st December 2001" there shall be substituted the words "any later date".'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 46

      No NEED FOR IBA TO INVITE APPLICATIONS BEFORE ENTERING INTO CERTAIN CONTRACTS
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 37, line 36, after 'programmes', insert
      `by companies which participate in the "programme provider" for DBS'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 135, in page 37, line 41, at end insert
      'where the IBA is satisfied that a programme contractor has

      (a) complied in all material respects with its previous contract and

      (b) made a substantial investment in the programme provider referred to in section 43 above.'.

      Mr. Mitchell: The intention of my amendment is to make explicit what I assume the Government are doing by clause 46. If clause 46 is to remove the obligation on the IBA to readvertise its contracts for the regional programming companies in the way that it has done in the past to provide for competitive bids, and then a reshuffling of the cards after an adjudication by the IBA, this should be made explicit, in the sense that it should not refer only to those companies which participate in the direct broadcasting by satellite, or DBS, because that seems to be what the Government want. To lure companies into DBS, they are offering the prospect of automatic renewal of the contract. If that is what the Government are doing, let us make it explicit by making it apply only to companies which participate in DBS. For companies which do not participate in DBS, surely the safeguard of the periodic reshuffling of the pack should remain in force then as it has in previous periods. It is a means of bringing new talent and new ideas into the industry, and allowing regional groups to form and reform to provide competitors for existing companies. Those needs are as strong as ever and should be maintained unless there is a need to encourage companies into DBS and to provide foil a situation in which the main trunk of the company participating in DBS cannot be chopped down by the IBA in the way in which it chopped down ATV, Southern Television and other companies in the past.
      Mr. Hurd: We rightly spent some time in Standing Committee on the provision for some minimum relaxation of the normal arrangements for franchise renewal. I explained to the Committee why we felt it necessary to make the move. It was in view of the case made by the ITV companies that, as a result of the franchise system, they could lose their reason for existence overnight, and that might seriously damage their ability to service capital for DBS. I can see the logic of what the hon. Member proposes but it is not what we have in mind.
      In fairness, I think it would be difficult to confine the minimum concession to some ITV companies and to deny it to others. The other point is that it would constitute an inducement to participate in DBS because of the possible franchise gain. That has not and has never been our idea. My right hon. and learned Friend has been particularly insistent that we do not want to try to persuade any companies to participate in DBS except on their own

      833
      assessment of the prospects for the joint venture. We do not wish to tempt them in that way. Therefore, after a certain amount of thought, we have decided that, having agreed to make this minimum relaxation, it should apply to all ITV companies, whether or not they participate in the joint venture.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I find the Minister's reply unsatisfactory because it is so vague. The prospect is being held out to companies that if they participate in DBS they will have automatic renewal. Indeed, it was avowed in the Committee, when it was argued that it would be dangerous for the main trunk of the company, from which it drew its financial viability, to be removed, thus threatening its ability to raise loans and all the financial paraphernalia necessary to participate in direct broadcasting by satellite.
      The periodic renewals of contracts and the reshuffling of the cards has had a revivifying effect on ITV. Indeed, one dates ITV by periods beginning in 1967, with contract renewal, and again in 1980, which mark the incursion of new talent and new ideas. It is desirable that that framework should continue.
      By making it vague in this fashion, the Minister seems to be giving the idea carte blanche not to go ahead. I feel that the Minister's reply is not satisfactory, but it is late and I have a strong desire not to refuse sausage and chips. It seems that Mitchell's amendment may hang that this juryman might dine.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 47
      PROVISION OF TRANSMITTING EQUIPMENT FOR NATIONAL SOUND BROADCASTING SERVICE
      Amendment made: No. 139, in page 38, line 40, leave out 'Telecommunications Act 1984' and insert '1984 Act'. —[Mr. Hurd.]
    Clause 48
      CONTROL OF LIVE BROADCASTING FROM ABROAD OF PROGRAMME MATERIAL ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
      Amendment made: No. 140, in page 39, line 1, leave out Clause 48.—[Mr. Hurd.]
    Clause 50
      REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS BY ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 141, in page 39, line 28, after `fit', insert 'also'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
    Clause 51

      INTERPRETATION OF PART II
      Amendments made: No. 142, in page 39, line 39, leave out subsection (1).
      No. 143, in page 39, leave out line 42. — [Mr. Hurd.]
      No. 144, in page 40, line 2, leave out 'and "DBS programme contractor"' and insert
      '"DBS programme contractor" and "DBS teletext contractor"'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 53

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 145, in page 40, line 16, leave out 'Telecommunications Act 1984' and insert '1984 Act'.
      No. 146, in page 40, line 21, leave out `Telecommunications Act 1984' and insert '1984 Act'. —[Mr. Hurd.]

    Clause 54

      SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 40, line 30, leave out 'Part II of.
      The amendment deals with the application of the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 148, in page 40, line 33 leave out 'Subject to section 41(4)'—[Mr. Hurd.]

    Schedule 4

      PROVISIONS OF 1981 ACT APPLIED BY SECTION 44(1)
      Amendment made: No. 155, in page 49, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—

      'Section 14(1).

      Provision of teletext services by IBA.

      Section 15.

      Code for teletext transmissions.' —[Mr. Hurd.]

    Schedule 5

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 156, in page 49, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 50.—[Mr. Hurd.]
      No. 157, in page 50, line 38, at end insert
      'as they apply in relation to newspapers'.
      No. 158, in page 51, line 9 at end insert
      'as it applies in relation to newspapers'.
      No. 159, in page 51, line 11 leave out 'Copyright Act 1956' and insert '1956 Act'.
      No. 160, in page 51 leave out lines 35 to 37.
      No. 161, in page 51, line 38 leave out 'section 14(10)' and insert
      `subsection (10) of section 14'.
      No. 162, in page 52, line 3at end insert—
      '(8A) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(11) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as if references in those provisions and in section 12(9) of this Act to sounds included references to signals serving for the impartation of matter otherwise than in the form of sounds or visual images.".'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
      Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 53, line 33 at beginning insert—
      `For the purposes of this Act no account shall be taken of a cable programme service if, and to the extent that, it is provided for—

      (a) a person providing another such service;

      (b) the Corporation; or

      (c) the Authority;

      and for the purposes of this subsection a cable programme service provided for the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, the subsidiary mentioned in section 12(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 or a programme contractor within the meaning of that Act shall be treated as provided for the Authority.
      (3B)'
      This is a technical amendment to remove from the purview of copyright cable transmissions between broadcasting and similar organisations intended for networking purposes, and not for direct reception by the public.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made:
      No. 164, in page 54, line 20 leave out from first 'of' to `to' in line 23 and insert
      `the said Act of 1984 or a service provided outside the United Kingdom which would be such a service if subsection (7) of section 2 of that Act and references in subsection (1) of that section.
      No. 166, in page 55, line 36 after 'or', insert 'for'.
      No. 167, in page 57, line 14 leave out
      'service within the meaning of Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984'
      and insert 'cable programme service'.
      No. 168, in page 58, line 36 at end insert
      `as they apply in relation to newspapers'.
      No. 169, in page 58, line 40 after 'or', insert 'for'.
      No. 170, in page 59, line 4 after 'or', insert 'for'.
      No. 171, in page 59, line 11 after 'a', insert `licensable'.
      No. 172, in page 59, line 22 after 'a', insert 'licensed'.
      No. 173, in page 62, line 38 leave out 'Broadcasting Act 1981' and insert '1981 Act'.
      No. 174, in page 63, leave out lines 14 to 19.
      No. 175, in page 63, line 19 at end insert—
      '(5A) For subsection (2) of section 42 of that Act (accounts and audit) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
      836
      "(2) The accounts of the Authority shall be audited by auditors to be appointed by the Authority with the approval of the Secretary of State.
      (2A) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as an auditor in pursuance of subsection (2) above unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies—

      the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

      the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;

      the Association of Certified Accountants;

      the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

      any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948 by the Secretary of State;

      but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners in the firm is qualified to be so appointed.".'.
      No. 176, in page 63, line 24 leave out
      `(unless the contrary intention appears)'.
      No. 177, in page 63, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert—
      '(7) After paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to that Act (rental payments) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "1A. In the principal sections (other than section 33(1)) and the following provisions of this Schedule references to advertising receipts—

      (a) in relation to a DBS programme contractor, and in relation to any period, include references to payments received or to be received by that contractor in respect of charges made for the reception of programmes provided by him and broadcast in a DBS service in that period; and

      (b) in relation to a teletext contractor, and in relation to any period, include references to payments received or to be received by that contractor in respect of charges made for the reception of programmes provided by him and broadcast in a DBS or additional teletext service in that period."

      (7A) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule—'.
      No. 178, in page 63, line 37, at end insert—
      `(bb) in sub-paragraph (7) for the words "the provisions of paragraph 1" there shall be substituted the words "the foregoing provisions of this Schedule"; and'.
      No. 179, in page 63, line 43, at end insert—
      '(9) At the end of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 7 to that Act (the Broadcasting Complaints Commission: supplementary provisions) there shall be inserted the words "but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners in the firm is qualified to be so appointed".'.
      No. 180, in page 64, line 3, after 'a', insert `licensable'.
      No. 181, in page 64, line 27, leave out `Telecommunications Act 1984' and insert '1984 Act'. —[Mr. Hurd.]
      Mr. Brinton: I beg to move amendment No. 182, in page 64, line 38, leave out 'licensable' and insert 'cable programme'.
      The object of the amendment is to extend the obligatory consultations between Oftel and the cable authority to licensing of interactive services and teletext services. As the Bill stands, the director of Oftel or the Secretary of State has to consult the authority when granting or revoking a licence within the meaning of part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act. By substituting "cable programme" service for "licensable" service, the definition would be broadened to include teletext and other interactive services which are covered by cable programme service and not by just the licensable service in clause 2(1) and (2). This measure will be beneficial to the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider it.
      Mr. Hurd: I take this last opportunity to thank all hon. Members, especially my right hon. and hon. Friends, for all the help they have given us in Standing Committee and throughout the rest of the proceedings. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and the purpose of his amendment. I stress, as I have done before, that we cannot think of cable systems in isolation — they are just one form of the whole range of telecommunications systems. The amendment would apply to the range of systems, not just to those that we have commonly called cable systems.
      Let us take the case of two companies wishing to set up a computer link between themselves or their subsidiaries. At each end the information is received on a visual display. This would be a telecommunications system, and as such the companies involved would need to apply to the Secretary of State for a licence under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State would have to consult the cable authority as well. That would be unnecessarily bureaucratic, because the cable authority in that case would have only an indirect interest at best. No doubt there will be cases where businesses and domestic services are delivered over the same system.
      I am not suggesting that the cable authority should be precluded from giving its views when a decision of the telecommunications licensing authorities is likely to affect its own licensees. Of course, the cable authority is free to offer advice, as I am sure it would do, and the Secretary of State would listen carefully to what the authority had to say. I doubt, however, if it is really necessary to provide in those circumstances for the procedures which my hon. Friend proposed.
      Licences are not available on demand, because the Secretary of State can grant a licence only if it complies with the firm duties set out in section 3 of the Telecommunications Act. For example — I know that this touches on the type of example that my hon. Friend has in mind—the Secretary of State must first ensure that if there is a reasonable demand for telecommunications service for instance, the demand from people in a particular area to have information services conveyed to them by the second operator, he must grant a licence. He can do so only if he is satisfied that by granting a licence for an additonal system he will not damage the ability of those already providing a service to continue to provide them to meet all reasonable demands. I believe that that provision offers protection in the type of cases about which my hon. Friend is understandably anxious.
      Mr. Brinton: In view of that somewhat encouraging reply and the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, I believe that the issue has been clarified. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 183, in page 64, line 38, leave out
      `service within the meaning of Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984',
      and insert 'cable programme service'.
      No. 184, in page 64, line 42, at end insert—
      '(lA) In subsection (1) of section 42 of that Act (fraudulent use of telecommunication system) for the words "service provided by means of a licensed telecommunication system" there shall be substituted the words "service to which this subsection applies".
      (1B) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "In this section 'licensed telecommunication system' means" there shall
      838
      be substituted the words "Subsection (1) above applies to any service (other than a service to which section (Fraudulently receiving certain programmes) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 applies) which is provided by means of .'.
      No. 185, in page 64, line 45, at end insert—

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        'The Video Recordings Act 1984
        47. For paragraph (b) of section 3(8) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (exempted supplies) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
        "(b) a cable programme service which is or does not require to be licensed.—.[Mr. Hurd.]

    Schedule 6

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 186, in page 65, line 8, at end add—

      '15 & 16Geo. 6 & 1

      The Defamation Act.1952.

      Section 16 (4)

      Eliz. 2. c. 66. 1955 c.11 (N.I.).

      The Defamation Act (Northern Ireland) 1955.

      Section 14.(3).'.

      No. 187, in page 65, line 23, at end insert—

      '1969 c. 48

      The Post Office Act 1969

      In Schedule 4, paragraph 53.

      No. 188, in page 65, column 3, leave out line 33.
      No. 189, in page 65, line 51, column 3, at end insert—

      'In Schedule 4, paragraphs 30 and 32:. —[Mr. Hurd.]

      12.37 am
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill deals with two, not wholly separate, technologies: wide-band cable, and satellite for direct broadcasting to the home. Neither development can be looked at purely in technological terms. There are social, economic and cultural implications for the way people live their lives, do their work and spend their leisure time. The Government's overall approach was made clear when we debated the cable White Paper in June last year. Our task, as I said then, is not to make constant judgments about what forms of economic activity may or may not succeed; rather it is to establish the financial and regulatory framework with which customer satisfaction and economic progress can be achieved while the public interest is safeguarded.
      Already the cable entertainment revolution has started in this country. We have four services being distributed over the old narrow-band systems and more on their way. Eleven pilot projects are planning to start their services next year. When the Cable Authority is established, the process of granting further cable franchises can begin. With regard to DBS, the joint project will be aiming to launch its three channel services by late 1987. Three years later we shall be opening up the possibility of further DBS services provided under the aegis of the IBA and in full competition with the joint project service. These developments will mark a major extension of customer choice in broadcasting. All of us, on both sides of the House, should welcome that.
      There is one further point that I should make that relates particularly to cable. The Bill, for reasons that have often been explained, deals mainly with the entertainment services which cable will supply, but the Government's

      839
      interest goes much wider than that. We see the Bill as having a significant long-term potential for the way in which people do their work and arrange their lives. It is for that reason that we are anxious to create the right framework in which cable systems can develop and prosper. I can assure the House that the Cable Authority, in exercising its regulatory functions relating to entertainment services, will have that wider perspective in view as it sets about its task.
      I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for steering the Bill through Committee so admirably and those of my hon. Friends who took part in the Committee proceedings and made such a constructive contribution to it and to Opposition Members.
      The Bill is designed to harness the latest technological developments in cable and satellite for the benefit of our manufacturing and service industries and for the customer at home. There is much more to this potential revolution than a simple increase in the number of outlets for programme services. The main object of the Bill has been to set the framework for the new era in the development of television and radio services in this country. I hope that in doing so it will come to be seen, much as the original Television Act, which was passed 30 years ago this month, was seen as a watershed in the development of television services in this country. It is for those reasons that I commend the Bill to the House.
      12.41 am
      Mr. Denis Howell: I have listened with great interest to what the Home Secretary said. It has been a pleasure to have been involved with the Bill although I still have many criticisms of it, one or two of which I feel a duty to utter even at this late hour. Most important is the fact that in Committee and on Report we have had 207 Government amendments and 37 new clauses. That is extraordinary. It shows that the Government have been making up television policy as they went along. There is no coherent philosophy on broadcasting and television policy.
      I have some sympathy for the Minister of State who told us earlier that some of the matters had been raised as the Bill proceeded and that plainly they had to be dealt with. That is so, but the fact that we have had to deal with them piecemeal cannot give any of us satisfaction. A broadcasting and television policy is vital to the nation. I do not believe that there is a household in the country that does not listen to the radio or watch television and which will not be interested in the future of cable and DBS.
      That being so, I submit that there should have been longer discussion in the House before the Bill was embarked upon so that we had the philosophy right and understood what the policy was to be. I regret the fact that that opportunity was largely missed.
      Despite that, we welcome the Government's principal philosophy which is that we should provide the maximum choice for the people of this country. It is for them to exercise their choice.
      There are still some problems which worry us and which I shall mention briefly. I asked the Minister in Committee once or twice what we should see on DBS, because halfway through the proceedings the Government announced that they would set up an authority for DBS as distinct from cable television. I still do not know the answer to that question. People will not put dishes up and pay large sums for DBS unless it provides a substantial service. I take comfort in that thought. Nevertheless the
      840
      House and the country are entitled to know the sort of programmes which the Government expect will be shown and made available on the DBS network. I expect that the new joint service provided by the BBC and ITV will consist mainly of news items and items on which the authorities think it reasonable not to compete to supply. If that is correct, I cannot imagine that many people will pay the sums involved to obtain access to the new service.
      During the passage of the Bill, the Opposition were excessively anxious to protect the interests of the trade unions and those working in the industry for home produced material. It was a recurring theme on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I welcome in part the fact that we start with an obligation on the new cable authority to produce a "proper proportion" of British material. We do not know that a "proper proportion" is. We know that in ITV it is now set at 86 per cent. I agree with the Minister that it would be unreasonable to impose a fixed percentage at the inception of cable television. However, it is important to maintain and protect standards. Trade unions will take comfort from the fact that the phrase "proper proportion", although it must be identified and defended by the new authorities, appears on the Bill. The Bill was improved by the Government's agreement to add the provision that thereafter there shall be an increasing proportion of home-made material.
      That enabled us, albeit with reservations, to agree that the rights of trade unions and trade to negotiate about these matters with the new authorities had been maintained and could be the subject of argument.
      I have a programme analysis from the 30 April to 14 May of some of the programmes operating already, and reading it one understands the worry of the trade union movement. In week one of the programming of cable television there were 22·5 hours of United States programmes on sports alone, such as karate, wrestling, high school cheerleading championships and drag racing. That is an extraordinary concoction for which to pay. There is a considerable amount of motor sport, one hour of sponsored films and one hour of original programming, which included "Talking point" and "The Book Programme".
      In week two United States programming had 21 hours, which included rodeo, karate, wrestling, motor sports and similar programmes. In week three the United States content occupied 23 hours of programming. It included shark fishing, water ski-ing, rodeo and boxing. I cannot believe that that mixture spells success, and even those who support cable television more enthusiastically than I do would be a little alarmed about such programming if it continued.
      The Opposition are still very worried about stations such as Radio Luxembourg, although we acknowledge what the Government have done to help tonight. We are gravely concerned about programmes made in Britain being sent overseas and then channelled back here. Although we wish to increase the choice available to the British public, we wish to do it without debasing the present standards of the BBC and the independent companies. I have detected some fear in the Government on this matter. They wish to maintain those standards while extending the choice, and it will be difficult to achieve both objectives. One can only hope that the new authorities will succeed. If they report annually and the House debates those reports, I hope that we can ensure that they meet both sets of criteria.

      841
      I must repeat that the Opposition are afraid that the Chancellor's withdrawal of capital allowances has made the entire operation shaky. The sceptics who believe that cable television will not get off the ground might well be right. Many companies are re-assessing their positions and asking themselves whether their investments, which will give a return only after a long period, can be justified. If that proves to be true, the exercise will have been a charade. I hope that that will not be the case and that the Government's original purpose—which we support—to extend public service and choice is realised. We have the gravest doubts, but we wish the new services well.
      12.52 am
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Some of us welcomed cable from the outset, and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues in the Home Office for their diligence in steering the Bill through the House so successfully. Therefore, it is no criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend to say that there is less enthusiasm for the development of multichannel cablevision than there was a year ago. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) gave one reason for that attitude. There is a much less favourable tax structure, and I am told that, for many people, the cable operator's licence is either unintelligible or that there is too much emphasis on uneconomic services. Criticism also follows from the fact that there appears to some to be a delayed availability of new technical standards which, when issued, may have a retrospective effect. There is also perceived to be increasing competition, amounting almost to a conflict, between cable and DBS. There are many more criticisms and doubts which have led to the growth in scepticism, but the hour is late and I shall not mention them.
      I recognise that many of the problems do not lie within the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend. He has laid down the general financial and administrative framework, if not with the same light touch as adumbrated by my right hon. and noble Friend Viscount Whitelaw. However, it has achieved the main objective of Conservative Members, which was not to set up a super-interfering bureaucracy. My right hon. and learned Friend has understood the difference between the role of the IBA and broadcasting and narrowcasting.
      The time has come for my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues to hand over the torch to the Department of Industry, which at times has been remarkably silent about this exercise. The Government should also restate what they have achieved so far and what they expect from manufacturers as well as those who desire to be cable operators. Most importantly, we need a restatement that the Government are still committed, as ever they were, to the concept that cable has a distinctive part to play in the nation's system of communications.
      Too many people are knocking it, including the right hon. Member for Small Heath. All we heard from him was references to cable in the context of television broadcasting. There was not a mention of interactivity or services. Given the knocking that has gone on, it is little wonder that a feeling has grown that cable is only about providing television. It is not an alternative to the present system of television, or to the present methods of
      842
      television entertainment. Nor is it merely a rival or an alternative to DBS, however much that may be stated by people in the existing broadcasting organisations.
      Cable can, and should, be seen as complementary to terrestrial and satellite broadcasting. By its capacity to provide interactivity and a multiplicity of services and programmes, cable is unique, but this uniqueness and the way it fits into the pattern of communications in this country is not sufficiently well understood.
      Having sat through much of the debate I know that it is not well understood by some hon. Members. How much more is that likely to be true of people outside, many of whom are entrepreneurs who are willing to take up the torch and challenge but are confused by the conflicting views that are often expressed here and elsewhere?
      While I congratulate my right hon. Friends on what they have been able to do so far in the important but limited area of their office, I believe that if the Government want this innovative medium of communications to succeed and to take off, they should seize further opportunities to restate their conviction that cable has a valuable and powerful role to play in this country.
      12.57 am
      Mr. Golding: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his contribution, but I go further. He said that as the Home Office had done its work the Department of Industry should now turn its attention to the matter. That is cart before horse in terms of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
      The arguments about whether the contracts should be for 13 or 15 years and about the impact of the Chancellor on investment allowances for cable have illustrated the shallowness of the Government's approach.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Wealden that we need cable for many other things besides television or radio. It must be provided in the best possible manner within a national framework and should be as technically advanced as possible. That will not be achieved by the way in which the Government are proceeding.
      This measure is called the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. That is a misnomer, because it is about cable programmes. That is why some of my hon. Friends have over-concentrated on the programme side.
      This legislation should have been about the provision of cable and the modernisation of telecommunications. There is much to be said for the argument that the provision of the network should have been included in the Telecommunications Act, however much I dislike it.
      Again I declare my interest, since I speak for the Post Office Engineering Union. I am among those who do not believe that it is bad to represent interests in the House. It is not bad for people to believe in what they say or to know a little about the subjects that they discuss. I do not apologise that interests are represented, although they were probably more fully represented when we debated the Bill setting up commercial radio in the mid-1970s.
      The Opposition have always believed that cable should be used to integrate telecommunications, data transmission and broadcasting. We have always believed that the system should be under public control and in the ownership of British Telecommunications. Nothing that I have seen or heard has dissuaded me from that view.
      It would have been far better for the Government to proceed with cable on the basis of the separation of the ownership of the cable system from the use of that system

      843
      through the programme companies. It would have been possible to give a cable service that provided for data transmission, and I believe that data transmission interactive services will be more important in the future than the multiplicity of television channels. That would have been more likely had there been this separation. The Government have made a mistake in the Bill by not separating them. Instead they have said that the programmes come first and, as an afterthought, they will provide the wherewithal, the cable system.
      To Britain in the 1990s and the year 2000, the cable system will be more important than the road and rail systems. The Government do not appear to have grasped that yet. There are those in the Government who make speeches about the development of telecommunications and about the new information technology revolution, but this legislation does not acknowledge that.
      The Government argued that to proceed on their basis would be to create jobs over the next couple of years. Those jobs are needed badly, and that I concede. But I believe that the Government are stumbling along this path in a way that will be damaging to the interests of Britain in the very near future and not only in the long term and the medium term. It will be detrimental to us because we shall suffer not only from an inadequate road system but from an inadequate telecommunications system as compared, say, with France. We shall suffer because of the piecemeal way in which the Government are approaching the cabling of Britain.
      It is very important that British manufacturers win contracts to cable Britain. However, the way that the Government are going about it will ensure that those orders go to Holland. That will be very regrettable.
      I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I wanted to put on record my view and that of my union that this legislation is ill-timed and ill-conceived. I regret very much that the Government are proceeding in this fashion.
      1.5 am
      Mr. Neale: It is tempting to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I have listened to him on many occasions speaking authoritatively and knowledgeably about the industry. In all fairness to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and his colleagues in the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Industry, they advanced stronly the view that the industry should be interactive-service led. The industry told them that it would have to be entertainment led in order to get off the ground. Therefore, that has tended to swing the argument or the presentation of the Bill round.
      As one who has come to know rather more about cable than I knew a short time ago, it is clear that the industry is learning a great deal about the new possibilities, and trying to legislate is like trying to hit a moving target. Circumstances will change immediately the Bill becomes law.
      Despite the criticism that has been levelled at my right hon. Friend because of the way in which he has introduced further changes, he has shown a real willingness on behalf of the Government to accommodate the views of all parties, which is commendable. The way in which he has at all times dealt graciously and tolerantly with various views has been a great example to hon. Members not only in Committee but in the House. I for one wish to thank him for that.
      844
      As near as can be achieved at this time, we have a Bill that will encourage those outside the House to look to the chances that they have. My right hon. Friend has made certain that as far as possible it will have a free hand in the complicated world of copyright, broadcasting, narrow casting, and so on. I thank him for his efforts.
      1.7 am
      Mr. Freud: The fact that the hour is late is not and must not be a reason for any hon. Member to make a different speech on Third Reading than he would have made at a more sociable hour. For that reason, it is lucky for the House that I did not intend to make a long speech on Third Reading.
      It seems only a few weeks ago since Second Reading when there was widespread concern in Britain about the IBA's extension of franchise without readvertisement. The Bill gives no direction as to the circumstances in which the IBA should use its discretion in the extension. I hope that the recipients of such extension will have in some way paid for it by substantial investment in the new technology.
      The Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, is a very different Bill from the one that came to us 37 new clauses and however many hundreds of amendments earlier. I hope that it is a better Bill. The Opposition cannot defeat the Government and we are all grateful to the Minister of State for his courtesy in listening to us, if not for coming forward and changing his mind as often as we might have had him do.
      The Bill will give Britain interactive services provided on the back of the entertainment industry. We have now legislated for that and it will be achieved at no cost to the Government. It is right for the House to extend good wishes to all those who avail themselves of the services —communicators and consumers.
      I finally gave a warning. People have only one pair of eyes. We already have four television channels. More Britons have video tape recorders than almost any other nation and it will not be easy for this new industry to provide compelling entertainment against the quality of entertainment that we now provide. It is right for we who have gone this far in the Bill to do our best to support the new cable operators.
      1.8 am
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is the Third Reading of the messiest legislation that the House has passed for several years, and certainly within my time here. When I retire from the House and take up the post of assistant lecturer at the Keith Joseph memorial shed at the polyversity, that will be all that is left of the university of Oxford, I shall use this Bill as an example of how not to legislate, and how not to approach a major problem.
      It is tragic that the framework of the future, which will affect our lives in so many ways, and which will have to provide an enduring structure for cable and DBS has been handled in this shambolic, disorganised fashion. We have here an illegitimate offspring of Prime Ministerial enthusiasm, which was conceived in haste and repented at leisure, and will almost certainly finish off by being brought up at public expense, because that is its only possible future. The Minister's greatest achievement in the presentation of the Bill was to manage to keep a straight face throughout, and to reduce the broad principles to a kind of apologetic mumble, so different to his crisp and dynamic prose style, which is the approach that I prefer.

      845
      It is clear that the Prime Minister rushed in with an impetuous enthusiasm, believing that cable was to be the revolution, the new dawn in Britain—a new railway age linking up the country. The Home Office has been left to clear up the mess, and we in the Committee have been part of the process of repenting at leisure.
      The process has taken three Bills — one that the House of Lords obligingly passed, another that was very different and that we on the Committee obligingly passed, and the third version, with numerous amendments, that we passed tonight. All that has been accompanied by commercial breaks designed to give opportunities to the Minister's friends—the pantheon of commercal interests on the Tory Benches, lobbying, for their benefit and that of the interests that they support, for concessions here, a little change here, and improvements. This has been accompanied also by some of the most intense commercial lobbying that I have known. That lobbying has been directed only to the interests of the Tory Benches, and has largely bypassed the interests of Labour Members, perhaps because the strength of our attachment to the principle of public service, standards in broadcasting and production in this country are known.
      All this has happened because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, the Government did not get right the fundamental proposition on which cable has to be based. It is folly to insist on the companies putting their money underground, when the broad band cable should be provided by BT, and the companies should be content to provide the programmes, the entertainment and the information for the consumers. That is the only way to get rid of contractors that one does not like, to get change and to get effective public control. The whole basis of what the Government are attempting to do is wrong, as the Bill is wrong.
      There is very little hope for cable, given that 11 contractors have submitted themselves and already many of them are losing faith and are in financial difficulties. Cable will be hived off as a cut-price telephone system, or a continuous bingo to try to get viewers away from the main channels.
      The prospect even for DBS, which is better, and which is clearly the Prime Minister's new enthusiasm, is scarcely better, because of the huge costs involved. It has first had to inveigle money from the BBC, then from the commercial television companies, under the lure of having their contracts extended indefinitely, and now commercial interests. It is not creating a new market system, but a ménage à trois, a troilism in the sky, which will emerge from the cable system. Everything else follows from those initial mistakes.
      In addition, the Government have smuggled in various other things under cover of passing the Bill, such as a national commercial radio network, which is not wanted, and cannot be afforded, without any estimate of whether the advertising revenue will be there to support not only cable and DBS but national commercial radio as well. Where is the enormous expansion of advertising revenue necessary to support those three new services to come from? What calculations have the Government made about the finances that will be available from an advertising cake which can grow only slowly and not in conformity with their boundless expectations?
      846
      That has been brought into this legislative ragbag, as has an extension of the life of the IBA, though not of the BBC. The IBA and the BBC will provide members for the Satellite Broadcasting Board, but the BBC's life is not to be extended.
      The Bill is a sad apology for legislation. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice; look at the Prime Minister and her impetuosity — not a bull at a gate exactly, though a similar image might be applicable—look at the Home Office with its bureaucratic inertia, look at the vested interests and their simple greed, look around and see the Bill, a monument to all those forces brought together in this short-sighted measure. A great opportunity has been rather stupidly thrown away.
      1.16 am
      Mr. Bermingham: I agree with the Home Secretary that the Bill is the start of the cable revolution. I understand the argument that it is meant to be entertainment-led, but I hope that the Government will not leave it there.
      My hon. Friend the Member fo Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) rightly said that the Bill should have been about information technology. I said in Committee and on Report that the cabling of this country is crucial to our industrial development, in the widest sense, in the 21st century.
      As one travels through Europe and elsewhere, it becomes increasingly apparent that the idea of shifting technology from place to place is crucial. Man talking to man or firm to firm, via an interactive system, saving journeys from one place to another, will be the pattern of industrial progress, in both manufacturing and the service industries. That is the way of the 1990s and the next century.
      We have the opportunity to encourage industry. Like my hon. Friends, I should prefer British Telecom to cable the whole country. I wish the cable television operators well. Anything that I have said has not been meant as a criticism of them, though I have sometimes criticised the content of their proposed programmes. I wish them well, but for them to succeed, the country needs to be cabled. To encourage that, we must make it worthwhile and lay on the systems to enable all the other uses of cable.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said that he was not particularly worried whether cable came to his constituency. That sort of attitude worries me considerably. We will not live for ever in industrial cities and it is through cable and such developments that we shall bring back industry to rural areas. That will be no bad thing. That is the sort of possible future use of cable.
      I urge the Home Secretary, when thinking about the national commercial radio system which he mentioned on Second Reading, to bear in mind that in some rural areas there are local commercial stations which survive on a shoestring. If a national radio service were set up, one would fear for the future of those stations. People in south

      847
      Lancashire and on Merseyside have expressed to me their worries on this point, which should be borne in mind when the matter is further considered.
      My mind returns to July last year and to the White Paper. The concept of cable is one that has always greatly excited me, because it has such great potential. It has potential in the entertainment sector, which I welcome. More importantly, it has a much more exciting and attractive future in industry. I hope that in the next stage of this development the Government will bear that sector very much in mind and seek to encourage it.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

      Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords]
      Lords amendments to Commons amendments considered.
    Schedule 1

      MINOR AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO STATUTORY SUCCESSION
      The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons in page 19, line 40, at end insert:
      "7. The following Schedule shall be inserted after Schedule 3 to that Act—

  SCHEDULE 3A
    OCCUPATION OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF STATUTORY SUCCESSION

      Preliminary
      1.—(1) In this Schedule "the occupancy condition" means paragraph (c) of the definition of "eligible person" in section 18(2) of this Act.
      (2) For the purposes of this Schedule a body corporate is controlld by a survivor of the deceased if he or this spouse, or he and his spouse together, have the power to secure—

      (a) by means of the holding of shares or the possession of voting power in or in relation to that or any other body corporate, or

      (b) by virtue of any powers conferred by the articles of association or other document regulating that or any other body corporate;

      that the affairs of that body corporate are conducted in accordance with his, her or their wishes, respectively.
      (3) Any reference in this Schedule to the spouse of a survivor of the deceased does not apply in relation to any time when the survivor's marriage is the subject to a decree of judicial separation or a decree nisi of divorce or of nullity of marriage.

      Excluded occupation
      2.—(1) Occupation by a survivor of the deceased of any agricultural land shall be disregarded for the purposes of the occupancy condition if he occupies it only—

      (a) under a tenancy approved by the Minister under section 2(1) of the 1948 Act or under such a tenancy relating to the use of land for grazing or mowing as is referred to in the proviso to that provision;

      (b) under a tenancy for more than one year but less than two years;

      (c) under a tenancy not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above and not having effect as a contract of tenancy;

      (d) under a tenancy to which section 3 of the 1948 Act does not apply by virtue of section 3B of that Act;

      (e) as a licensee; or

      (f) as an executor, administrator, trustee in bankruptcy or person otherwise deriving title from another person by operation of law.

      (2) Paragraphs (a) to (e) of sub-paragraph (1) above do not apply in the case of a tenancy or licence granted to a survivor of the deceased by his spouse or by a body corporate controlled by him.
      (3) References in the following provisions of this Schedule to the occupation of land by any person do not include occupation under a tenancy, or in a capacity, falling within paragraphs (a) to (f) of that sub-paragraph.

      Deemed occupation in case of Tribunal direction
      3. Where a survivor of the deceased is, by virtue of a direction of the Tribunal under section 20 of this Act, for the time being entitled (whether or not with any other person) to a tenancy of the whole or part of any agricultural holding held by the deceased at the date of death other than the holding, he shall, for the purposes of the occupancy condition, be deemed to be in occupation of the land comprised in that holding or (as the case may be) in that part of that holding.

      Joint occupation
      4.—(1) Where any agricultural land is jointly occupied by a survivor of the deceased and one or more other persons as—

      849

      (a) beneficial joint tenants;

      (b) tenants in common;

      (c) joint tenants under a tenancy; or

      (d) joint licensees;

      the survivor shall be treated for the purposes of the occupancy condition as occupying the whole of the land.
      (2) If, however, the Tribunal in proceedings under section 20 of this Act determine on the survivor's application that his appropriate share of the net annual income which the land is, or was at any time, capable of producing for the purposes of section 18(3A) of this Act is or was then less than the aggregate of the earnings referred to in that provision then, for the purpose of determining whether the occupancy condition is or was then satisfied in his case, the net annual income which the land is, or (as the case may be) was, capable of so producing shall be treated as limited to his appropriate share.
      (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above the appropriate share of the survivor shall be ascertained—

      (a) where he is a beneficial or other joint tenant or a joint licensee, by dividing the net annual income which the land is or was at the time in question capable of producing for the purposes of section 18(3A) by the total number of joint tenants or joint licensees for the time being;

      (b) where he is a tenant in common, by dividing the said net annual income in such a way as to attribute to him and to the other tenant or tenants in common shares of the income proportionate to the extent for the time being of their respective undivided shares in the land.

      Occupation by spouse or controlled company
      5.—(1) For the purposes of the occupancy condition and of paragraph 4 above, occupation—

      (a) by the spouse of a survivor of the deceased; or

      (b) by a body corporate controlled by a survivor of the deceased;

      shall be treated as occupation by the survivor.
      (2) Where, in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, paragraph 4 above applies to a survivor of the deceased in relation to any time by virtue of the joint occupation of land by his spouse or a body corporate and any other person or persons, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of that paragraph shall apply to the survivor as if he were the holder of the interest in the land for the time being held by his spouse or the body corporate, as the case may be.

      Ministerial statements as to net annual income from land
      6. The reference in the definition of "relevant land" in section 18(6) of this Act to agricultural land which is occupied by any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that definition includes a reference to any agricultural land which is deemed to be occupied by him by virtue of this Schedule."."
      with the following amendment:
      Line 95, at end insert—
      "(4) Where by virtue of paragraph 3 above any land is deemed to be occupied by each of two or more survivors of the deceased as a result of a direction entitling them to a joint tenancy of the land, the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply to each of the survivors as if the land were jointly occupied by him and the other survivor or survivors as joint tenants under that tenancy."
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Mr. MacGregor: These final amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bill relate to the eligibility of applicants for succession. On Report in this House we debated this matter when I moved several amendments on behalf of the Government. During the debate on one of
      850
      those amendments the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) drew attention to a loophole which he considered would still exist after the amendments had been made.
      I said in reply that I recognised that
      "this is an extremely complicated area of law … I accept that there will inevitably be some loopholes and that it is not possible to put an end to all the difficulties."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 399.]
      I said, in conclusion, that I had taken note of the issues raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South.
      These amendments deal with one of the loopholes. It has been pointed out that where the death of the tenant is anticipated, or where the tenant plans to retire under the inter-vivos retirement arrangements, it will be relatively easy for a potential applicant for succession who occupies a commercial unit to grant one of the forms of excluded tenancy or licence under paragraphs 2(1)(a) to (e) of new schedule 3A to a member of his family or even to an outsider. In this way the grantor would cease to be in occupation for a short period during which he can establish his eligibility and succeed to the tenant's holding.
      These amendments close the loophole, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I agree that the amendments close one of the loopholes. My party accepts that it would be extremely difficult to close the other loophole, because of the tortuous drafting that would be involved. We accept that there are difficulties. The Agricultural Lawyers Association, which has been of considerable assistance to both sides of the House during all stages of the passage of the Bill, accepts that these amendments go a long way towards covering the matters that I raised on Third Reading and on Report. We hope that those who have to operate this legislation will accept that it was the intention of Parliament to ensure fairness in succession and in eligibility, and that the Act will be read in the spirit in which the Bill has been debated in this House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

      ESTIMATES
      Resolved,
      That this House agrees with the Report [5th July] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.]

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House. — [Mr. Neubert.]

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That, at the next sitting of the House on which Motions are moved on behalf of the Committee of Selection, such Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first Motion has been entered upon, and, if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which

      851
      have been selected by him; and that, notwithstanding the practice of the House, each Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion. —[Mr. Neubert.]
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Objection taken.

      Grimsby Share Fishermen
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
      1.24 am
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the economic plight of the Grimsby share fishermen to the attention of the House. They are a section of society who are so little known that hon. Members have asked me all day whether share fishermen, as printed on the Order Paper, is a misprint. It is not. It is a common form of fishing in Grimsby and other parts of the country. I believe that it originated in Denmark and it was common in the small boat inshore industry in earlier days. Now, with the decline of the big boat long-distance fishing industry, it is the predominant form of fishing in Grimsby and much of the rest of the country.
      Grimsby has about 600 share fishermen, about 400 of whom are in regular employment on the same net fishing boats that are the basis of Grimsby's fishing fleet. It is a simple system. The boat and its owners take 55 per cent. of the return, on auction, on the fish. In more democratic firms it is 50 per cent. I understand that, in Scotland, the boat's share is normally 50 per cent. The crew at Grimsby take 45 per cent. of the return, after deduction of costs such as food, oil, fuel, rope and sometimes an allowance for the navigator. Those expenses amount to about one quarter of the return on most trips.
      One subject of complaint is the fact that the expenses are made higher by the fact that bonded supplies cannot be taken on smaller fishing boats, as used to be the case with trawlers that fished distant water. The system is called settling on the net. That does not mean settling on the fishing net but net as distinct from gross. The 45 per cent. is divided on set lines between the crew.
      There is some flexibility. If the skipper wants to attract an especially skilled fisherman, keep someone's services or is desperate to get someone on the boat, he can give that person a slightly larger share. Normally, however, the skipper will get 15 to 17 per cent., the deckie cook will get about 13 per cent. or slightly more, the other deckie will get 13 per cent. and the crew will get 3 per cent. or, in some cases, 4 per cent. Their number can be supplemented by a trainee who gets a basic wage of about £50 plus a proportion, depending on what the crew decide to allocate him, which might amount to between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. of the catch. In addition, crew members get an allotment that is sent direct to their wives by the firm. It can be perhaps £40 a week, which is sent by messenger or sometimes by registered mail to support the wife and family while the husband is away.
      The system was introduced and was popular when fishing was far more prosperous. Since then, we have hit fairly intense competition, a threat to conservation and stocks and the common fisheries policy. There has consequently been a reduction in catches and over fishing. When fishing was good, share fishing was popular. A successful skipper with a successful boat is still popular. In those circumstances, a lot of money can still be made. However, a successful skipper and a successful boat is comparatively, and increasingly, rare. Catching was down last year, and it is down again this year. In Grimsby, it must be down by about 25 per cent. Prices remain obstinately low and will not rise to the levels that are necessary to support the industry. In those circumstances,

      853
      share fishing is a system of exploitation. In many respects it is rather similar to share cropping in the southern states of the United States. Share fishing has become a system of exploitation and it is a serious economic problem for the fishermen who participate in it. The vessels are often merely breaking even. They are certainly not making the sort of profits that they have to accumulate in the summer months to enable them to survive through into the winter. They are not making the profits that will lead to investment in new vessels. We have an ageing fleet which is just about managing to keep going, but it is not providing the returns to provide benefits for the crews that share fishing should logically provide.
      The catches are not big enough because of the various financial difficulties and the crews are returning in debt. Whatever their return on their share of the catch, they have to pay the allotment which has been allocated by the agents to their wives and families while they have been away. If there is not enough made on the catch to pay back the allotment, they finish each trip in debt. That is becoming increasingly the experience of skippers and crews in Grimsby. The debt to the agent accumulates and the agents are in debt to the bank. That is part of the crippling accumulation of debt that is hanging around the neck of the fishing industry.
      I shall give the example of Mr. Kai Mathieson. His wife is one of several fishermen's wives who have approached me on the issue. She is the most persistent, efficient and effective in putting the share fisherman's case. She has brought me all her husband's settling sheets for 1983. They are from Tom Sleight (FS) Ltd., when he was on the "Ulla Viola" and the "East Bank", which he was on for most of the year. The returns show—they are available to anyone who wants to see them—that most of the trips that year ended in debt. There was an accumulation of debt of £1,631. The minority of trips which resulted in profit produced £535. The debts were much greater than the profits during that year. Mr. Mathieson finished up over £1,000 in debt as a result of fishing. That happened in 1983, and 1983 was a far better year than 1984 is turning out to be. Mr. Mathieson is on the "Arconia Bay" this year —he is the skipper of a new vessel and is working for a different agency—but this year has been even worse. He returned last week with his first profit. It was an 18-day trip off the Norwegian coast. He made £7,100 on the option with expenses of £2,800. That profit was with seven kit condemned. His share was £350 after tax and stamp. The money had to be used to pay the accumulated debts that have built up when he has not been in profit. His wife has had to shoulder that burden over the months. She has faced the bills that have waited to be paid.
      How do these people manage? They manage only because the share fisherman's stamp is a cross between the self-employed stamp and the employee's stamp. They are able to sign on for unemployment benefit for the periods when they are on shore. That is all they get for the housing benefit to which they are entitled. It fluctuates wildly because of the money that they are making or not making. There can be a considerable fluctuation over two or three weeks. It is difficult to calculate housing benefit with any degree of certainty. The unemployment benefit is all that keeps the system going. The sacrifices fall entirely on the wives and families of the shore fishermen.
      854
      I have been provided by Mrs. Mathieson with her household expenditure for the month of June. It shows that only the allotment from the agent—£40 a week for her — plus her husband's unemployment benefit and the extra that she is able to get occasionally from social security has kept the family going. Indeed, there are weeks in the month in which she has ended up with substantially less income—on 22 June, £5 less than her outgoings.
      It is a system in which the whole burden of sacrifice falls on the wives and families. As part of her energetic effort to put the case, Mrs. Mathieson went to the extent of writing to the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, asking people who felt as she did to write in to her. She had an astonishing number of replies. I shall quote from one or two of the letters which give a dramatic indication of the struggle that fishermen's wives have, just to keep going.
      Mrs. Elliott reports that her husband, through no fault of his, comes home and lands in debt. She writes:
      "We have a mortgage of £125 per month, and when unemployed he gets £44 per week. If he is fortunate to make a few good trips then the money has to be laid by for gas and electricity bills, etc. We practically have no social life, maybe if we are lucky one night in a month. We are proud people. But now giving this chance to voice my views. The fishermen are the only ones in the state that are being made fools of'.
      That is one reply to Mrs. Mathieson's appeal.
      Mrs. Johnson, wrote to say that she has had two years in debt. After his last trip of 22 days her husband came home £128 in debt. She has to find £23 rent, the money for school dinners and for gas, and has to borrow money from the firm. She adds that they cannot go out, and cannot even buy chocolate for the kids. Her husband has earned £163 so far this year. She wants a divorce. She might not like that to be mentioned, but I am afraid I have mentioned it. That is another examaple of the strains that fishermen's wives have to endure.
      Another lady, whose name I will not give, says that her husband was three weeks at sea and ended up £80 in debt; still writing after three weeks for social security and has not received it. He was offered a food voucher.
      Another lady writes that "Fishing wants stuffing." Her husband was 16 days at sea and ended up £180 in debt. The husband gets £95 a week. Rent of £25 is being paid from the last trip.
      Another lady writes about the family being three years in debt through fishing. The husband has been waiting for some weeks to go to sea. She asks why he should do that, only to accumulate more debt.
      That kind of burden is falling on the wives of fishermen, thanks to this system, and it is now becoming difficult to persuade people to go to sea. Why should they go to sea in order to come back with an accumulated burden of debt? It is a story of accumulated debt and increasing struggle, and it is made worse by two other factors.
      There is nobody to speak for the men. They can join the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union cannot negotiate for them, because it would be involved in negotiating hundreds of agreements with all the different vessels. They have a Share Fishermen's Association which has managed to get a Save and Prosper pension scheme agreed by the owners, but that is the only improvement in their lot that has taken place over the years. There is nobody to fight for them.
      The system favours the powerful, as is shown by what happens to rebates on fuel. They have not been paid now for two years, but when they were paid the rebate on fuel

      855
      went to the owner of the vessel; it was not taken into account in any recalculation of the men's share, because that had already been paid out to them.
      The men go to sea because that is their way of life; they know no other. They want to go to sea. It has a lure and an attraction for them. They are not natural conformists or natural nine-to-five workers. They want to go to sea but they are paying to accept one of the hardest lives and hardest existences in this country. It is a job where the men have little time at home. From my experience of a few days on a seine netter, I found that the men are at work from dawn to dusk continually. The work is physically exhausting. It is also extremely dangerous and becoming more so. The number of total losses of fishing vessels under 40 ft in five-year periods has increased steadily over the years. In the period 1968–1972 there were 29 total losses only of vessels under 40 ft; 1973–1977 there were 41 and 1978–82 there were 68.
      The risk factor per 100,000 vessels has shot up. In 1978 it was 0·6 per cent. In 1982 the figure had increased to 4·5 per cent. The deaths per 100,000 employed in the industry as the vessels become older and as investment falters have increased from 114 in 1961 — compared to 40 per 100,000 employed in coal mining, which is supposed to be the toughest industry—to 247 fishermen killed per 100,000 in 1979, the last year for which I have the figures. The figure has more than doubled since 1961. There were 25 miners killed. That figure has almost halved. That is the price of fish and it is increasing. It is the toughest, worst paid, and worst treated job in the United Kingdom. We owe an enormous amount to the fishermen who have to put to sea in such conditions.
      I want to suggest to the Minister that there are things that could be done. I shall do so briefly because I know that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) wishes to intervene about the Grimsby Landing Company and the threat of the port closure which is hanging over us.
      The only way to keep the industry going and allow it to pay a decent return to its employees is to renew the operating aid which we had for three years and which has now stopped. France is still paying a fuel subsidy. Why can we not pay an operating subsidy which is channelled to the men to help support them? Secondly, we need a proper system of market support and an adequate system of withdrawal prices so that the crew do not come back with a completely inadequate return and end up in debt, or we shall have to establish co-operatives which will give the men some muscle in the market.
      Thirdly, we must regulate the employment and structure of share fishing to increase the wage element at the expense of the share-of-the-catch element to give the men a guaranteed income in these increasingly hard times. The Minister should do something for an industry which needs these men and their contribution, but which feels that it is being allowed to drift. The industry is treated as agriculture under the treaty of Rome but does not receive anything like the help and support that agriculture receives.
      It is an industry which is vital to this country. The men who serve that industry have had a hard time and a raw deal and it is time that something was done for them.
      1.42 am
      Mr. Michael Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr.
      856
      Mitchell) for allowing me a few moments of the debate. He speaks for many of my constituents who work in Great Grimsby when he draws attention to the plight of the share fishermen.
      Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider another problem which affects not just the share fishermen but the whole fishing community of Grimsby? During the next few weeks, or maybe the next few days, the Grimsby Landing Company will have to make some difficult and momentous decisions which will determine whether there is to be a fishing industry with share fishermen going to sea from the port of Grimsby.
      The debts have piled up in the landing company because of the difficulties in trying to strike the correct balance between the costs of the dock labour force and the need to retain sufficient dockers and lumpers to deal with the fish coming into the port. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his offices to liaise closely with the Department of Employment to try to bring together the local employers and the lumpers' representatives to draw attention to the terrible position not just of share fishermen but of the port of Grimsby.
      1.45 am
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on his stamina, after his performance during the debate on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. Such was his stamina that he was rather carried away, leaving me with little time in which to respond. I shall do my best.
      The hon. Gentleman made it clear that particular groups of fishermen working on a share basis are in difficulties. I sympathise with them. I certainly wish to minimise the difficulties faced by the fishermen, their wives and their families. I listened carefully to his suggestions, and shall try to touch on his three main points.
      The hon. Gentleman will recognise that share fishermen are in a privileged position with regard to unemployment benefit, and that is helpful in view of their fluctuating earnings. They are self-employed, and such people do not normally qualify for unemployment benefit. The exception has been made for share fishermen so that although they are self-employed, they may in certain circumstances qualify for benefit. That is one way in which we can help.
      I accept all that the hon. Gentleman said about the hardships that those fishermen sometimes face at sea. Much of the hon. Gentleman's statements concerned the point that fishing was not producing the necessary earnings, partly because of the reduction in landings at Grimbsby, especially of cod. It is clear that the share fisherman's position is insecure. His earnings are unpredictable — they will be governed by weather conditions, fluctuations in the market and his success in locating and taking fish. It is true that many of those factors are outside the fisherman's control. It is true also that some meet the problems more successfully than others, as the Gentleman said when talking about successful skippers. At the same time some are facing difficulties, others are prospering. That is true in fishing, as it is in other areas of business. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government cannot be expected to protect people who have elected to venture into any area of self-employment from all the risks inherent in that decision nor, I suspect, from knowing the self-employed

      857
      and the fishermen, would those concerned expect them to. The Government have a role to play in establishing the general framework in which those people operate. I shall try to put the hon. Gentleman's remarks about low returns, the problems of debts, support for the industry and the special problems of Grimsby in their wider context.
      I shall examine two broad areas — first, the framework of Government and community policy within which the industry generally has to work and, secondly, the general economic picture of the industry. We have often talked about the importance of the successful negotiation of the common fisheries policy which creates a broad framework within which the industry can plan for the future. That is what the industry wanted and what it has welcomed.
      Positive measures have been taken to conserve stocks. That is important in the case of cod, because a considerable part of the reduction in landings of cod is due, I suspect, to overfishing. Conservation measures,. which mean a lower quota and lower TAC this year, are therefore important for fishermen in the longer term.
      A series of structural measures has been agreed and implemented to help the industry bring about those changes that are necessary to achieve a better and more profitable balance between fishing capacity and opportunities. That is important for fishermen in the longer term.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to aids for the industry and other member states of the community. It is right to emphasise the generosity of the financial provisions for the restructuring programme. It means money going into the industry. It is right also to point out that we in the United Kingdom were first in all the Community to make the full range of grants available under the European Community's programme to our fishermen. Up to £85 million is available from Community funds and from our Exchequer to finance a range of measures during the next three years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, decommissioning grants are available to encourage the removal from the fleet of vessels which are not viable under present conditions. That scheme is linked with a licensing system that seeks to ensure that vessels that are decommissioned with grant are not replaced with new vessels designed to pursue what the industry now knows as "pressure stocks". The value of this measure to the individual concerned is evident, but the benefits will be felt more widely, because this adjustment in the fleet will reduce the number of vessels seeking a share of our quotas. Already, more than £6 million has been paid out under the scheme, and more applications are in the pipeline. Other schemes provide for laying up grants and grants to support exploratory voyages and joint ventures.
      That is one part of the adjustment story. The second part is investment in the future, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in the building and modernisation of fishing vessels. The largest single allocation from the £85 million that I mentioned—£42 million—is for building and modernisation. This is as it should be, since the viability of the industry over the medium and longer term will depend crucially on maintaining a satisfactory level of investment in vessels.
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby will remember that it was recently announced that FEOGA building and modernisation grants totalling nearly £3 million have come
      858
      to the United Kingdom from the most recent round of grant allocations. Grimsby featured prominently in the list. Indeed, Grimsby vessel owners have received more than £602,000 from Community funds during the past three years out of a total for English vessels of £2,040,000.
      The third leg of the adjustment process is to improve the marketing of fish. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was able to announce a grant of just under £8 million towards the cost of launching the SFIA's marketing programme during the next three years. If it succeeds in creating a greater willingness to consume fish in the United Kingdom, it will help prices in the longer term.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned market support. The Community has a market regime for fish within which the Government and the industry must work in relation to third countries and the internal market within the Community. In the internal market fishermen who opt to join producer organisations, set up under the Community market regime, can and are expected to work together to balance supply and demand in their markets. Moreover, they in turn qualify for FEOGA assistance when fish is withdrawn from the market when it fails to reach the official withdrawal price. Some general rules must be met and these cause problems for the producer organisation operating in Grimsby. However, the general point remains valid: there is a market support regime which provides a safety net in the market, and it works successfully for other producer organisations in many parts of the country.
      There is a particular problem about the dock labour scheme, which enables me to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). As my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman know, I have taken a close interest in the working of the national dock labour scheme as it affects the fish docks in Grimsby. When I was in Grimsby recently that point was most commonly put to me as causing difficulties for the fishing industry. I have discussed it with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. The problem is best tackled locally. I was keen to encourage local people to get together, and I continue to say just that. It is important that all those locally consider the present position to see whether the present practices are most appropriate to present-day conditions and whether there is scope for change to improve the port as a landing place for British and foreign vessels.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment had a meeting recently about the Grimsby Fish Landing Company. This month there is a special scheme for voluntary severance payments for registered dockers and considerable interest has been shown. It is too early to say whether this will make a difference, but it could do so, if it reduced the number of registered dockers.
      The provision of support for the industry demonstrates clearly the Government's commitment to doing all that they can to create a climate in which the industry can plan for the future and prosper. Because of all the Government aid, there is no case for repeating the special subsidy paid for operating aid in the special circumstances of 1980 to 1982, which were introduced because the common fisheries policy was not in place, even if such a scheme stood a chance of successfully resisting challenge from the Commission. The French operating subsidy to which the hon. Gentleman referred is currently being challenged by the Commission.

      859
      Many problems relate to the difficulties with cod this year and last. The total value of landings of fish in Grimsby have been lower so far this year than during the corresponding period last year. It reflects lower total landings and there are many reasons for that. At the same time prices have been firm. The Grimsby average price for all demersal species during the first 25 weeks of the year was 13 per cent. higher than in the same weeks of 1983. Average prices for cod and haddock were up by about 20 per cent.
      I could have said much more if I had had more time. Finally, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the third of his suggestions about a different arrangement for allocating the returns for share fishermen, must be taken
      860
      up with the industry and the fishermen. The Government cannot intervene. The industry and fishermen must agree to new arrangements if they are appropriate.
      I hope that I have shown that the Government have created an environment in which the fishing industry can plan for the future with confidence. However, success will come to a port only if all concerned pull together and respond effectively to a developing position and the challenges that they face. This is especially relevant in Grimsby, which has special problems, in which I have taken and will continue to take a close interest.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Clergy (Pay)
  Clergy (Pay)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Contract Debts (Interest)
  Contract Debts (Interest)
  Circuit Judges
  Circuit Judges
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Enclosure Acts
  Enclosure Acts
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programme (Vehicles)
  Aid Programme (Vehicles)
  Lomé III
  Lomé III
  Joint Funding Scheme
  Joint Funding Scheme
  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Somalia
  Somalia
  Falkland Islands (Hospital Fire)
  Falkland Islands (Hospital Fire)
  Zimbabwe (Crown Servants' Pensions)
  Zimbabwe (Crown Servants' Pensions)
PRIME MINISTER
  Fontainebleau Agreement
  Fontainebleau Agreement
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Pre-school Groups
  Pre-school Groups
  Engagements
  Engagements
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Miners (Bail)
  Miners (Bail)
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Birmingham International Airport
  Birmingham International Airport
  Prerogative of Mercy
  Prerogative of Mercy
  Pensioners (Television Licence Fee)
  Pensioners (Television Licence Fee)
  Wheel Clamps
  Wheel Clamps
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Mr. Robin Walsh
  Jersey and Guernsey
  Jersey and Guernsey
  Drug Pushers
  Drug Pushers
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Public Telecommunication System Designation (Order)
  Public Telecommunication System Designation (Order)
  New Technology (Application)
  New Technology (Application)
  Industrial Research
  Industrial Research
  Motor Cars (Spain)
  Motor Cars (Spain)
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Company Liquidations
  Company Liquidations
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Ceylon Shipping Corporation
  Ceylon Shipping Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Dumping
  Dumping
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Magistracy
  Magistracy
  Magistrates (Bolton)
  Magistrates (Bolton)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees (Travel)
  Select Committees (Travel)
DEFENCE
  Home Defence
  Home Defence
  Mine-hunters
  Mine-hunters
  Attachment Duty
  Attachment Duty
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Defence Establishment, Inchterf
  Defence Establishment, Inchterf
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Open University
  Open University
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Nutrition
  Nutrition
  Married Women (Mature Students)
  Married Women (Mature Students)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Technology and Science Students
  Technology and Science Students
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Railway Coaches (Asbestos)
  Railway Coaches (Asbestos)
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Midland Line (St. Pancras-Sheffield)
  Midland Line (St. Pancras-Sheffield)
  Public Assets (Privatisation)
  Public Assets (Privatisation)
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  Marylebone Station
  Marylebone Station
  Crewe Station (Closure)
  Crewe Station (Closure)
  Passenger Services (Wales)
  Passenger Services (Wales)
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Merchant Navy
  Merchant Navy
  Horse Riding (Hard Hats)
  Horse Riding (Hard Hats)
  Air Transport Licences
  Air Transport Licences
  Motor Insurance (EC Directive)
  Motor Insurance (EC Directive)
  British Rail (Public Services Obligation Grant)
  British Rail (Public Services Obligation Grant)
  Inter-city Services
  Inter-city Services
  Road Lighting
  Road Lighting
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Conurbations (Transport)
  Conurbations (Transport)
  Motorways (North-West Region)
  Motorways (North-West Region)
  BA and BAA (Privatisation)
  BA and BAA (Privatisation)
  Roads Policy
  Roads Policy
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Public Transport (Government Support)
  Public Transport (Government Support)
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Access)
  Hospitals (Access)
  Road Drainage (Pollution)
  Road Drainage (Pollution)
  Brake Pads
  Brake Pads
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Wheel Clamps
  Wheel Clamps
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory (Study)
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory (Study)
  Road Traffic Forecasts
  Road Traffic Forecasts
  Transport Supplementary Grants
  Transport Supplementary Grants
  British Airways (Belfast Route)
  British Airways (Belfast Route)
  British Airways (Privatisation)
  British Airways (Privatisation)
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
WALES
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Trainee Doctors (Expenses)
  Trainee Doctors (Expenses)
  Huntingdon's Chorea
  Huntingdon's Chorea
  Mine Workings (Pollution)
  Mine Workings (Pollution)
  Perinatal Pathologists
  Perinatal Pathologists
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Moorland (Ploughing and Afforestation)
  Moorland (Ploughing and Afforestation)
  Cynon Valley (Jobs)
  Cynon Valley (Jobs)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Carpet Industry
  Carpet Industry
  Energy (Grants and Incentives)
  Energy (Grants and Incentives)
  Hydro-electric Generation
  Hydro-electric Generation
  Rent Assessment Tribunals
  Rent Assessment Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Moorland
  Moorland
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Fatalities (Statistics)
  Fatalities (Statistics)
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Vessels (EC Grants)
  Fishing Vessels (EC Grants)
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Sewerage
  Sewerage
  Rent Officers
  Rent Officers
  Nursing Staff
  Nursing Staff
  Fish Processors (National Investment Incentives)
  Fish Processors (National Investment Incentives)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Moorland (Ploughing and Afforestation)
  Moorland (Ploughing and Afforestation)
  Locate in Scotland
  Locate in Scotland
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
EMPLOYMENT
  Information Technology Centre Courses (Trainees)
  Information Technology Centre Courses (Trainees)
  Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Wages and Salaries (Statistics)
  Wages and Salaries (Statistics)
  Trade Union Elections (Postal Ballots)
  Trade Union Elections (Postal Ballots)
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Positive Action Programmes
  Positive Action Programmes
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Limpit Ladder
  Limpit Ladder
  Harzardous Substances
  Harzardous Substances
  Youth Employment
  Youth Employment
  Industrial Accidents (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Industrial Accidents (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Youth Training Scheme (Crewe)
  Youth Training Scheme (Crewe)
  Female Unemployment (North Staffordshire)
  Female Unemployment (North Staffordshire)
  Disabled Persons (North Staffordshire)
  Disabled Persons (North Staffordshire)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Farm Safety
  Farm Safety
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Imports
  Milk Imports
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Production
  Farm Production
  Cereal Farmers
  Cereal Farmers
  EC (Intervention Stocks)
  EC (Intervention Stocks)
  Live Poultry
  Live Poultry
  Agricultural Wages Board (Chairman)
  Agricultural Wages Board (Chairman)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Spain (EC Membership)
  Spain (EC Membership)
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Hong Kong and China (Meeting)
  Hong Kong and China (Meeting)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Iranian Embassy (Political Banners)
  Iranian Embassy (Political Banners)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Dependent Territories
  Dependent Territories
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS (Unit Costs)
  NHS (Unit Costs)
  NHS (Performance Indicators)
  NHS (Performance Indicators)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Community Health Councils (Grants)
  Community Health Councils (Grants)
  Death Benefit
  Death Benefit
  Nurses (Mid-Essex)
  Nurses (Mid-Essex)
  Maternity Services (Link Workers)
  Maternity Services (Link Workers)
  Schizophrenia (Prescription Charges)
  Schizophrenia (Prescription Charges)
  Board and Lodging Charges
  Board and Lodging Charges
  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Birth Certificate (Details)
  Birth Certificate (Details)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  NHS Hospitals (Closure)
  NHS Hospitals (Closure)
  Private Hospitals
  Private Hospitals
  Warnock Report
  Warnock Report
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Dentists (Earnings)
  Dentists (Earnings)
  NHS (Dental Service)
  NHS (Dental Service)
  Medical Staff (Pay Settlement)
  Medical Staff (Pay Settlement)
  Health Authorities (Asset Sales)
  Health Authorities (Asset Sales)
  Hospitals (Bolton)
  Hospitals (Bolton)
  Training Schemes
  Training Schemes
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Spending (Wales)
  Capital Spending (Wales)
  Election Communications
  Election Communications
  Civil Service (Job Losses)
  Civil Service (Job Losses)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  Airports (Duty-free Shops)
  Airports (Duty-free Shops)
  Dundee Airport (Customs and Excise)
  Dundee Airport (Customs and Excise)
  "European Community Budget"
  "European Community Budget"
  Foods (Taxation)
  Foods (Taxation)
  Loan Authority Expenditure
  Loan Authority Expenditure
  Inflation
  Inflation
  EEC and EFTA (Growth Rates)
  EEC and EFTA (Growth Rates)
  Price Stability (Policy)
  Price Stability (Policy)
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  EC (Contributions)
  EC (Contributions)
ENERGY
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  Coal Liquefaction
  Coal Liquefaction
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
ENERGY
  Combined Heat and Power (Scotland)
  Combined Heat and Power (Scotland)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authorities (Capital Projects)
  Local Authorities (Capital Projects)
  Inclosure Acts
  Inclosure Acts
  Town and Country Planning Act (Environmental Damage)
  Town and Country Planning Act (Environmental Damage)
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  Water Authorities (Standing Charges and Rates)
  Water Authorities (Standing Charges and Rates)
  House Purchase (First-time Buyers)
  House Purchase (First-time Buyers)
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Arsenic
  Arsenic
  Ancient Monuments
  Ancient Monuments
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Flats (Roof Space Development)
  Flats (Roof Space Development)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Ministerial Cars
  Ministerial Cars
  Paint (Lead Content)
  Paint (Lead Content)
  Land Use (Study)
  Land Use (Study)
  Empty Residential Properties
  Empty Residential Properties
  Housing Subsidy (Lambeth)
  Housing Subsidy (Lambeth)
  Gas Service Work
  Gas Service Work
  Farm Tourism and Recreation
  Farm Tourism and Recreation
  Small Firms in Rural Areas (Planning Problems)
  Small Firms in Rural Areas (Planning Problems)
  Wytch Farm
  Wytch Farm
  Moorland
  Moorland
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Housing
  Housing
  Wildlife and Countryside Act (Amendment) Bill
  Wildlife and Countryside Act (Amendment) Bill
  Housing Authorities (Assets)
  Housing Authorities (Assets)
  Fluoride
  Fluoride
  Green Belt Development Applications (Bromley)
  Green Belt Development Applications (Bromley)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Road Safety: Blood Tests
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take following the conclusion of the six months' trial period during which motorists will have had the blood option as an alternative to evidential breath testing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the steps to be taken will depend on our assessment of the information which we are deriving from this monitoring. The six months' monitoring period is less than half way through, and it is too early to draw firm conclusions. We shall publish a report on the results.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. But will he not agree that in view of the adverse publicity which led to the extended blood option it is essential that public confidence be restored in evidential breath testing? Will the Minister give an assurance that, as the six months' period is up on 16th October, no action will be taken while Parliament is in recess? Will he also give an assurance that there will be no withdrawal of the blood option until Parliament has had the fullest opportunity to consider the final results?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can confirm that the object of having this period of review is indeed to ensure that the public can have a justified confidence in the machinery being tested. As I have said already, it is too early to say what the results of this period of monitoring will be; but I can assure the noble Lord that the period will not be curtailed unless there is very clear evidence that it is not necessary to extend it.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, while I accept that the breathalyser is suitable for testing for alcohol, may I ask this question. Does the Minister not agree that in cases where the police suspect drugs it is very necessary to have a blood test? Therefore, I hope that he will bear this significant point in mind in making his assessment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the intoximeter is designed solely to test for alcohol in the blood. The requirements for testing for drugs remain unaltered.

Widows: Maternity Allowance
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that recently widowed pregnant women are unable to claim maternity allowance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, a woman may draw a widow's allowance during the first 26 weeks of widowhood, followed by a widowed mother's allowance if she is pregnant by her late husband. She is not prevented from claiming maternity allowance, but only the amount of the more favourable benefit for which she qualifies is paid. In this case, it would normally be the widow's benefit.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for his reply. May I ask whether he agrees with me that the people who are mentioned in this particular Question about the maternity allowance are very few? These people are young women who have not had their first baby but are pregnant and whose husbands have been killed or who have died from other causes. Would he agree with me that no woman under 40 is able to claim a widow's pension and that no woman who is pregnant with her first baby is able to claim maternity allowance until the baby is born?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I certainly agree with my noble friend that only a very small number of people fall into this particular group. As my noble friend will know, this is a contributory benefit as opposed to a non-contributory one. I have some sympathy with the view which my noble friend expresses. But as she is aware, a review is being undertaken at the moment by the department (details of which were announced by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Security on 18th May) which will encompass the maternity benefits and payments administered by the department and the maternity pay scheme administered by the Department of Employment. It will examine the scope for simplified administration and for making more effective use of the present resources. I am sure that my honourable friend will wish the review to consider the suggestion of the eligibility of widowed mothers for overlapping benefits, which I think is what my noble friend is looking for.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I support my noble friend in her most sympathetic Question? To be widowed, to lose one's husband, is a very terrible experience.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely share the views which the noble Baroness expresses. That is why the review has been set up to look into this problem.
Barones Jeger: My Lords, I appreciate that this whole question is to be reviewed, and I am sure that the whole House welcomes that. However, can the noble Lord make it clear whether an expectant mother whose husband dies during her pregnancy is disadvantaged as compared with a woman happily not so bereaved? Is she disadvantaged compared with an unmarried, single mother so far as this benefit is concerned? Can the noble Lord assure the House that the union disputes at Newcastle are not causing any delay in the payment of benefits in these cases?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, regarding the last part of the supplementary question, I am not sure of the answer, but I will check and let the noble Baroness know. I know the dispute is affecting certain things but I do not know if it is particularly affecting those we are discussing. So far as the comparative rates are concerned, I do not think it would necessarily be right for me to give a table of the rates now, but I can certainly let the noble Baroness have them. However, the point is that it has always been the rule of our rather comprehensive social security system that there should not be two payments of benefit for the same purpose. The point that we are essentially talking about here is the beneficiary's maintenance. Where a person qualifies for two national insurance benefits such as widow's benefit and maternity allowance, both of which are intended for that maintenance, only the amount of the higher benefit is paid.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, as president of the National Association of Widows, may I thank my noble friend for his sympathetic answers today? May I also ask whether he would take a message back to his right honourable friend to ensure, as I think he said he would, that this particular very small group of women should be considered in the future?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I will certainly ask my right honourable friend to look into this matter. I am sure that he will read the exchanges. I am well aware of my noble friend's work for the National Association of Widows, and I am sure that he will bear all that in mind.

Nurses: Smoking and Stress
2.43 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since the report Health or Smoking? states that smoking among nurses is a cause for grave concern, they are satisfied that the working conditions of nurses do not give rise to undue stress.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government are not aware of any undue stress produced by nurses' working conditions.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am obliged for that Answer. Is it not astonishing that those who are best placed to see the suffering caused by smoking-related
562
diseases should themselves find it so hard to give up the habit?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, but is is not just a question of giving it up. There are those who take it up as well, and the reasons for that are fairly complex. There have been a number of reports on the matter, and I think there is general agreement. If I may quote from the introduction to a report in 1982 called Smoking Amongst Nurses in Newcastle, the first paragraph stresses:
"all are agreed that the considerations most likely to be effective in dissuasion are, first, the health risks; secondly, the cost; thirdly, the unpleasantness and social unacceptability of the habit".
It is a question of people being at a formative age when thay take up nursing and of being among others who smoke. That is probably the cause, rather more than stress, to which the Question refers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister not aware that the men and women who work in this great profession are under constant threat of emotional assault? They are not repairing motor cars, they are not carpenters or joiners: they are dealing with human beings, and this causes an additional amount of stress. There has been evidence that relief from this stress and emotional concern is to be found in smoking. Would the noble Lord not agree that it behoves all of us to make whatever contribution we can to help the nurses of Britain's National Health Service and to see that any strain that can be removed in their working lives is in fact removed and not allowed to return?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's point, but the fact is that they are not under the stress from which the noble Lord describes them as suffering. More nurses have been employed over the years, as the noble Lord knows. I am well aware that there are certain parts of the nursing service which are stressful, such as working with patients in psychiatry, with patients in intensive care, and so on; but there is not the evidence to support the fact that they are taking up smoking because of stress, particularly in these fields.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not a happy coincidence for non-smokers that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has asked this Question on the day when the London Underground has gone smokeless? In relation particularly to the nurses, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the Royal College of Nursing and other organisations representing nurses are very worried about this problem? Is there more that he thinks his right honourable friend can do to ensure that nurses in training have an opportunity to have brought to their attention the grave dangers of smoking and the importance of their setting a lead for others?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as the Underground is concerned, I am delighted; but that is a personal point of view. So far as discouraging smoking among nurses is concerned, the Health Education Council, which the Government fund, have taken a number of steps to discourage smoking among nurses and to develop their role in educating patients about the dangers of smoking, which I think was a

563
point to which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred. For example, last year they issued booklet packs to hospital and community nurses which gave facts about smoking and advice on how best to communicate advice and information. The HEC have also organised a series of seminars aimed at increasing the knowledge of nurses about smoking.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would agree with me that it might be a good idea if surgeons were to invite nurses who are heavy smokers to come and watch operations for lung cancer on those people who have smoked and are dying from lung cancer?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have a feeling that, anyway, there are probably many nurses who take part in these operations who are smokers. But anything that can be done to reduce smoking for the benefit both of people who smoke and for the health service is to be welcomed.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that nurses' accommodation is an important part of their working conditions? Would he undertake to do all that he can to see that no nurses' accommodation is unnecessarily closed, thus thrusting them on to the open property market at a higher price?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, lots of factors give rise to stress. I am sure that, in the end, working conditions are more important than their accommodation, where people relax and probably smoke at will anyway; but I think the noble Lord's question is really a different one.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that if one is bullied and badgered not to do something, it just makes one want to do it all the more?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, bullying and badgering is one thing; encouragement is another.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is it not as well to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has reminded us, that there are male as well as female nurses? Is it not the case that in the report Health or Smoking? the Royal College seems to assume that all nurses are female, since it treats the question under the heading "Women and Smoking"? Is there evidence of any difference in the incidence of smoking as between male and female nurses? Also, in view of the fact that doctors who are addicted to tobacco have taken to snuff, according to a leading article in the BMJ itself in November last, would not nurses be well advised to follow the doctors, who are as much subject to stress as they are?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have a breakdown of the respective figures as between male and female nurses. So far as snuff is concerned, I know the noble Lord's particular views on snuff, and there are others who support them. I am sure that the nurses will note his view.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, as regards going in for alternatives, would the noble Lord agree that a drop of Scotch is much more relaxing than the other two?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I would, but I am not sure that everybody would agree with me.

Hospital Casualty Departments: Central London
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many casualty departments there are in hospitals in central London and what is the average time patients have to wait before they are treated.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are 11 hospitals with general accident and emergency or casualty departments within a three-mile radius of Charing Cross. Information on waiting times is not available centrally.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, even though the second part of it was rather disappointing. Is he aware that there is tremendous pressure on the accident and emergency departments due to the enormous volume of people pouring into London every day for so many different reasons: for example, tourists or people going to work? Will he try to find out how many of these patients are genuine emergency cases and how many are those who do not have GPs or who cannot get hold of their GPs and just happen to feel ill?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are no departmental standards on what is an acceptable time for accident and emergency patients to wait. Clearly it depends very largely on the nature of the patient's condition and that can be assessed as a matter of medical judgment only by the doctor on the spot. One of the key jobs of the accident and emergency departments is to sort out the really ill patients, who must be seen without delay, from those who can safely wait for a little longer. It is the health authority's job to gear staffing to the workload of the department, but peaks in numbers cannot always be predicted and at these times some delays may be unavoidable. Certainly, it is a feature of the planning of the accident and emergency services that account is taken of the workload arising from the type of people to whom the noble Baroness referred, such as commuter influx, holidaymakers, and other casual attenders.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whenever surveys of the work of casualty departments have been carried out, it has been shown that between one-third and one-half of the total number of cases seen could more appropriately have been handled in a primal-y care setting? Does he not feel that the proper

565
answer to the hard-pressed casualty departments is to improve primary care in inner cities, in particular in London, as suggested by the Acheson Report? That report contained 115 recommendations, which I think was probably more than could have been expected. One of the more important ones was the suggestion that older general practitioners should be encouraged to retire, so that younger and more enterprising doctors could take up posts in primary care in inner London.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly the Acheson Report came up with a number of recommendations aimed at improving primary health care, reducing the inappropriate use of A and E departments, and improving communications between hospital and primary health care services. The report has been recommended to health authorities, and to family practitioner committees as well, as a basis for action on those recommendations which fall within their sphere of responsibility. Additionally, I ought to say that the Government have made available an additional £9 million in total over four years to improve primary health care services in inner cities.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, since the noble Lord has on a number of occasions indicated the attitude of the Government towards hospital waiting lists, does he not agree that it should be a responsibility of the Government to look at waiting times in accident and emergency units? Is he aware that the Association of Casualty Surgeons tells me that it is not unusual for patients to wait for up to five hours at St. Thomas' Hospital and three-and-a-half hours at King's College Hospital, and will not the situation become very much worse when the Middlesex Hospital and St Leonard's, Hackney, close very soon? Are there any other hospitals that are now at risk, and is this not likely to be a growing problem on which the Government really should take some serious action?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government certainly take it seriously as a matter of policy, to ensure that there are sufficient facilities generally to cope with the problem. But it is not always right, as I think the noble Lord will appreciate, to lay down from the Elephant and Castle exactly how best a particular district health authority should meet problems in its area. The department's policy is that an accident and emergency department should normally serve a population of at least 150,000, but, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, this is not a rigid figure.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House how many small GP hospitals in the central London area have lost their casualty departments recently, and what alternative arrangements have been made?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, not without notice, I am afraid.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the accident and emergency service is facing severe problems and that
566
this is an indication of the general malaise affecting the health service? Is he further aware that there is hardly a hospital in outer London and the South-East region which has not faced temporary closure of accident and emergency departments, thus throwing a tremendous strain on other hospitals which have to cope? This is not happening only at the moment; it has been going on for far too long, and it is an aspect of the health service that needs very urgent attention.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the question on the Order Paper specifically refers to hospitals in central London, and I reject entirely the criticisms that the noble Lord makes of the destruction of the health service, so far as this and other matters are concerned. Over half-a-million more in-patients and day cases were treated in 1982 than in 1978; so that gives some weight to the argument.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, since the noble Lord said quite rightly, that this Question relates to central London, will he comment on the very imminent closure of the accident and emergency centres at the Middlesex Hospital and at St Leonard's, Hackney, and say whether any others are in danger? Surely this is absolutely relevant to the question which I put to him.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot comment specifically on the closure. What I can say about St Leonard's is that I understand that some demonstrators there are protesting at the change of use of the hospital, which was recently, agreed by my right honourable friend the Minister for Health. They are preventing certain staff from entering the hospital, and the authority is seeking to have them removed. But I have to say to the noble Lord that the change of use was agreed after full consultation and referral to Ministers. So far as other hospitals are concerned, I have no facts or figures on them, but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister at least consider that if there should be any closures of great hospitals in London, he might give an instruction to the RHAs involved that they should consult the representatives of the junior surgeons, the junior doctors, and the ambulance crews to make quite certain that the best of what is left is made available for casualty purposes?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords I am sure that the regional health authorities concerned will always be willing to speak to the people to whom the noble Lord referred. As he knows, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health is also regularly in touch with the BMA, the junior doctors, and so on. But the fact remains that we are talking here about accident and emergency services only, and not about general hospital closures.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord investigate the point raised in the supplementary question I asked and let me have an answer in writing?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, of course, my Lords.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Mr. Umaru Dikko's abduction.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment consideration of Commons amendments to the Animal Health and Welfare Bill will he taken.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 29 [Arrest elsewhere than at police station]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 24, line 36, at end insert—
(" (1A) Subject to subsections (1B) and (1C) below, the police station to which an arrested person is taken under subsection (1) above shall be a designated police station.
(1B) A constable who is attached to a police station which is not a designated police station may take an arrested person to any police station unless it appears to the constable that it may be necessary to keep the arrested person in police detention for more than six hours.
(1C) Any constable may take an arrested person to any police station if—

(a) either of the following conditions is satisfied—

(i) the constable has arrested him without the assistance of any other constable and no other constable is available to assist him;

(ii) the constable has taken him into custody from a person other than a constable without the assistance of any other constable and no other constable is available to assist him; and

(b) It appears to the constable that he will be unable to take the arrested person to a designated police station without the arrested person injuring himself, the constable or some other person.

(1D) If the first police station to which an arrested person is taken after his arrest is not a designated police station he shall be taken to a designated police station not more than six hours after his arrival at the first station unless he is released previously.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 92 I shall, with your Lordships' leave, speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 and 102, to the Motion, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?, and to Amendment No. 174. When, I set out what is in these amendments I expect the noble Lord, Lord Plant, will wish to speak to his Amendments Nos. 103 and 104, which seek to alter the provisions in one of the amendments. I hope that that reflects what the noble and learned Lord sees on the paper before him.
568
Amendment No. 101: After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Designated police stations.
.—(1) The chief officer of police for each police area shall designate the police stations in his area which, subject to section 29(1B) and (1C) above, are to be the stations in that area to be used for the purpose of detaining arrested persons.
(2) A chief officer's duty under subsection (1) above is to designate police stations appearing to him to provide enough accommodation for that purpose.
(3) In this Act "designated police station" means a police station designated under this section.").
Amendment No. 102: After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Custody officers at police stations.
.—(1) one or more custody officers shall be appointed for each designated police station.
(2) A custody officer for a designated police station shall be appointed—

(a) by the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station is situated; or

(b) by such other police officer as the chief officer of police for that area may direct.

(3) No officer may be appointed a custody officer unless he is of at least the rank of sergeant.
(4) An officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer at a designated police station if a custody officer is not readily available to perform them.
(5) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to section 37(2) below, none of the functions of a custody officer in relation to a person shall be performed by an officer who at the time when the function falls to be perfomed is involved in the investigation of an offence for which that person is in police detention at that time.
(6) Where an arrested person is taken to a police station which is not a designated police station, the functions in relation to him which at a designated police station would be the functions of a custody officer shall be performed—

(a) by an officer who is not involved in the investigation of an offence for which he is in police detention, if such an officer is readily available; and

(b) if no such officer is readily available, by the officer who took him to the station or any other officer.

(7) References to a custody officer in the following provisions of this Act include references to an officer other than a custody officer who is performing the functions of a custody officer by virtue of subsection (4) or (6) above.
(8) Where by virtue of subsection (6) above an officer who took an arrested person to a police station is to perform the functions of a custody officer in relation to him, the officer shall inform an officer who—

(a) is attached to a designated police station; and

(b) is of at least the rank of inspector.

that he is to do so.
(9) The duty imposed by subsection (8) above shall be performed as soon as it is practicable to perform it.").
Amendment No. 174: Clause 111, page 96, line 15, at end insert—
("designated police station" has the meaning assigned to it by section (Designated police stations) above;").
These amendments contain a substantial amount of material, but as they hang so closely together it would only be confusing if I tried to take them separately.
Clause 34 of the Bill, as printed, introduces the very important new role of custody officer. This post has been devised in order to place a new and important emphasis on the treatment of detained persons. It provides a new element of direct personal accountability for those people's welfare and for safeguarding their rights. In order to make sure that that responsibility is discharged by somebody with no conflicting interests in the way in which the detained person is handled, subsection (3) of Clause 34 provides that the custody officer cannot be involved in any way

569
in the investigation of the offence for which that person is detained.
That separation between the custodial and the investigative powers of the police seems to us to be an important safeguard of the interests of people detained at police stations. I believe that noble Lords will agree with us in that view and that they will also agree that the role of the custody officer is of considerable importance. It follows, therefore, that we must ensure that the scheme laid down in the Bill makes it possible for police forces to develop a sufficient number of regular custody officers of sergeant rank who are deployed where they are needed. We must also make certain that the requirements of the Bill are not so rigidly drawn as to affect detained persons adversely in other ways or to reduce the efficiency of the police in their normal work.
It appears to us on reflection and in the light of criticisms made in another place that the scheme in the Bill as printed is less than perfect in both of these respects. It does not take sufficient note of the fact that, while some police stations are large and busy establishments, with numerous officers attached to them and with a fairly constant traffic through the cells, others are entirley different. Rural police forces would have serious difficulty if they had to operate out of stations like that. I expect very many of your Lordships are familiar with police stations run by only two constables, or even only one, whose proper job is not to sit all day in the station houses but to get out among the communities for which they are responsible.
Under the Bill as drafted, the police would have only two choices: either they would have to take every arrested person direct to one of the major stations, often a great many miles away, or they would have to appoint a very large proportion of their rural personnel as custody officers. It seems to us on reflection that the first course would be immensely inconvenient for people who are arrested in country districts, who would have to travel 20 or more miles to attend a station for as little as a quarter of an hour before travelling back again, and that the second would almost certainly dilute the status of the custody officer below what we would all wish it to be, which in itself is also an important safeguard for people who are detained by the police. It is to overcome these difficulties that I now ask your Lordships to agree to add to Clause 29 the subsections printed in Amendment No. 92 and to replace Clause 34 with the new clauses printed as Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 on the Marshalled List.
The scheme which we now propose is embodied in these amendments, and it recognises the existence of these different sorts of police stations. The full provisions of the custody officer system will be provided in the larger stations. These will be designated for the purpose by the chief officer under the first new clause. An appropriate reference to designated police stations is added to the definition clause under the consequential Amendment No. 174. It is still required in the new scheme that a person normally should be taken to a police station with a custody officer; that is to say, to a designated police station. The new provisions in Clause 29, proposed in Amendment No. 92, however, lay down the
570
circumstances in which an arrested person may be taken to a non-designated station where there is no regular custody officer. It also lays down that under no circumstances may he be held there for more than a maximum of six hours. Your Lordships may already have seen in Clause 38 that six hours is the longest that the Bill will permit a person to be held in police detention without charge before the decision to detain him must be reviewed by a senior officer. That is why we have pitched on that length of time.
The circumstances under which a person may be taken to a non-designated police station are, broadly, when the arresting constable's home station is a non-designated station or where the constable cannot get into a designated station because he is single-handed, cannot get help and cannot count on getting him there without injury. Whatever the circumstances, if he is not going to be released within six hours he has to be transferred to a designated police station where a custody officer will at once become responsible for him. For minor offences, very often, however, it will be simply a matter of unlocking the station, charging the person immediately or asking a few questions to establish, for instance, the degree of criminal intent in order to decide whether or not to prefer a charge. It is with some confidence that I ask your Lordships to agree to the changes I have so far described. Noble Lords opposite, in particular, have always been most critical of us when we have departed from the letter of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. This represents a return to that letter.
Amendment No. 102, which is intended to replace Clause 34, is therefore the most important of this group of amendments. The first five subsections provide for the appointment of at least one custody officer who must be of the rank of sergeant, at least, for each designated police station. The important features of these subsections, which are different from Clause 34, are that custody officers are to be specifically appointed as such and that those so appointed must be of at least sergeant rank. Subsection (4) does, however, permit other officers, who will sometimes be of a rank lower than sergeant, to perform the functions of a custody officer if he is not readily available. Subsection (5) retains in designated stations the strict division of investigative and custodial responsibilities at present prescribed generally in Clause 34(3). We would wish that separation to be preserved as far as possible, even during the brief sojourn of a detained person in a non-designated station. This, as the Royal Commission pointed out, can pose a problem. Subsections (6) to (9) address that problem.
Subsection (6) defines who is to perform the functions of the custody officer if an arrested person is taken to a non-designated station. If possible, it will be an officer not involved with the investigation; but if it is not, or if both officers were involved in the arrest, the distinction between custodial and investigative responsibilities may be suspended. This obviously carries risks. That is why the new subsections (8) and (9) provide new safeguards. Subsection (7) is a drafting convenience. Subsections (8) and (9) provide safeguards which apply when the officer who has taken an arrested person to a non-designated station has to perform the function of a custody officer. They require him to get in touch as soon as practicable with an

571
officer who is of at least the rank of inspector and who is attached to a designated police station, and to inform him that it will be necessary for that constable to perform the functions of a custody officer. In practice, this will be done by telephone or radio. Your Lordships will note that the inspector must be informed before any action is taken to ensure that the senior officer is aware that a suspect is being detained at a non-designated station, and he can, if necessary, order the prisoner to be brought to the designated station, or send other officers to help. The requirement about immediate reporting goes beyond the safeguards recommended by the Royal Commission.
The institution of the custody officer is a major development in the ethos of policing. It is vital that the scheme is workable and practicable. As I have explained, Clause 34, as drafted, would cause difficulties. It would lead in a minority of cases to considerable inconvenience to the arrested person and to the depletion of local police cover. These amendments will meet this problem and at the same time introduce extra safeguards to counterbalance the increased discretion given to the police. The new scheme follows recommendations made by the Royal Commission, and I recommend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would have some sympathy with me if I said that the list of groupings has only just arrived on our Bench. If, therefore, we err at any time, I hope the noble Lord will be kind enough to put us right, and to do it with his usual jovial manner and not in anger.
It is my hope that we can abbreviate these long proceedings by everybody behaving sensibly, as we always do: and if we find that an amendment can be taken conveniently, even if it is outside a grouping, then we will speak to it so that there will be one debate and not many debates. In that context, I refer immediately to Amendment No. 95B, which is an amendment to Page 25, line 12, and states as follows:
"Where there is delay as provided in subsection (5) above"—
and perhaps I may pause and remind the Committee of what subsection (5) says. It states:
"Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent a constable delaying taking a person who has been arrested to a police station if the presence of that person elsewhere is necessary in order to carry out such investigations as it is reasonable to carry out immediately".
Amendment 95B goes on to say:
"then the relevant time for the purposes of section 39 below shall be the time of the person's arrest".
In regard to Section 39., may I remind your Lordships that it deals with the question of the computation of the various times of detention which have to be authorised, first, by the police and, secondly, by the courts.
I am bringing that discussion in now because in general terms we on these Benches have no objection whatsoever to this amendment—provided it is clearly understood where and when the time starts for the computation I have just mentioned in regard to detention. Can the Minister concede now that Amendment No. 95B is one that he finds acceptable; namely, that where there is that delay in subsection (5)—and I repeat, that is only the delay necessary,
572
"in order to carry out such investigations as it is reasonable to carry out immediately"—
then it will be agreed that time begins to run, since the police are being assisted in this connection, from the actual time of the arrest? Can he concede that it will not be from the time of the arrival at the police station—which may of course be long-delayed not only because of such investigations but also by virtue of a removal from one police station which is not a designated police station to a designated police station? If the Minister would clarify that matter it would save an awful lot of debate on Amendment No. 92 and would also save the Committee a debate on my later amendment. Therefore, I thought it only sensible to bring the discussion in now. If it helps the noble Lord the Minister for me to keep on talking then I can do so, even if it irritates your Lordships.
Lord Elton: I believe that I can save the noble Lord the embarrassment of irritation by sharing and sympathising with him over his difficulty regarding the groupings. We have a difficulty with the volume of amendments. I do see the relevance of what the noble Lord was saying. He was not addressing himself to this specific rubric of Amendment No. 95B but to the principle of when the detention clock starts. I can certainly say that we want to have a specific time for the detention clock to start and for that time to be clearly marked.
If I was to start debating whether that time should be the time of arrest or the time when the suspect's foot first crosses the threshold of a police station. I should be taking your Lordships away from the principal concept of the amendment, which is the concept of the custody officer being appointed as a specific position to be held by somebody of sergeant's rank and the equally important issue of there being a difference between those stations which can properly be the base of operations of a custody officer and those which could only so become at immense inconvenience not only to the police but also to suspected persons. I cannot therefore give the noble Lord the assurance that he wants in respect of the clock starting at point of arrest; but I should like to give my reasons—or for my noble friend to do so—when we reach that subject.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: It is obvious that I am not abbreviating the proceedings as I hoped to do, and therefore I will not elongate them by protesting at the way in which the mind of the noble Lord the Minister is working in this respect. But can he at least tell the Committee, from when the clock begins to tick, if there is a taking of the accused to a police station which is not a designated police station from which he must be removed to a designated police station within six hours—then are six hours added to the time? Does the clock begin to tick from the time of the arrest or from the time of the arrival at the police station?
Lord Elton: As I understand it, the clock begins to tick upon arrival at the non-designated police station. The only provision I recall in the Bill for the pushing back of the hands of the clock, as it were, is where people are arrested a long way from home and have to he transferred from one police force to another and are not questioned under the first.
Lord Plant: I am somewhat bewildered at the moment. There are a number of amendments down to these two clauses. I am not clear whether we are now taking Clauses 29 and 34. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can help me.
Lord Elton: The amendments to which I spoke were Amendment No. 92 (which is the substantive amendment), Amendments Nos. 101 and 102, Clause 34 stand part, and Amendment No. 174. I think that I can help the noble Lord by saying that his Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 strike at the amendments that I have put on the Marshalled List and therefore this would be a very suitable time for him to say why he prefers his scheme to mine.
Lord Plant: I thank the Minister for that help. I also have down an amendment to Clause 29, but I will deal now with the subject which the Minister has just raised; that is, my Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 as amendments to Amendment No. 102.
As amendments to Amendment No. 102:
Amendment No. 103: Subsection (4), at end insert ("but that officer must be qualified for promotion to the rank of sergeant and acting as a sergeant under Police Regulatons.").
Amendment No. 104: Subsection (5), at end insert ("The custody officer shall be so employed and shall have no other duties and responsibilities so long as detained persons are at the station, save in any dire emergency.").
In addition to the Bill, codes of practice will place an enormous burden on the custody officer, who is bound by the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings where he is said to have made omissions arising from the operation of the new procedures. There may be occasions arising from the arrest and detention of just one person where no fewer than 50 entries are required on the custody record. The Police Federation and the other organisations of the police are not against the keeping of the records, and they are firmly of the opinion that when people are arrested and searched they should have a record from the police authority. But how anyone could contemplate that the task of making the various entries can be incidental to an officer's other responsibilities baffles the police. The Royal Commission, in Paragraph 3.112 recognised the scope of this problem by stating that where it is warranted,
"there should be an officer whose sole responsiblity should be for receiving, booking in, supervising and charging suspects".
If Parliament requires that these procedures are carried out, the police service must have the resources to do that task correctly. This means manpower, premises and finance. The subsections which need attention are those which state that each chief police officer shall designate certain police stations in his area for the reception and detention of arrested persons and that all persons arrested shall be taken to such stations.
That point has already been conceded by the noble Lord: but in the country areas, admittedly, it may not be practicable to take such persons to a designated station. At each station there shall be a police officer of the rank of sergeant, designated as custody officer, to perform the function directed by this Act to be performed by a custody officer for each period of police duty performed at that station. The Government have to a large extent admitted or agreed in their amendment that the custody officer should be
574
of the rank of sergeant, but the police want some clarification on this point. The police say that no officer below the rank of sergeant shall be employed as custody officer unless qualified for promotion to that rank and acting as a sergeant under Police Regulations.
If we just accept the Minister's amendment one could have a probationer acting as a custody officer. I think that that would be wrong. In this important new area, I believe we ought to say to the Government that no custody officer shall be below the rank of sergeant, and that where no sergeant is available it should be a man who has qualified for promotion to sergeant under the Police Regulations. That would prevent a probationary officer doing this job.
The Minister says that we may have a station where there is no one qualified for promotion to sergeant. I would doubt that very much. In any case there would be senior officers in that police station who could act as custody officer until a man of sergeant's rank, or a man qualified to be sergeant, is in attendance. In addition, none of the functions of a custody officer in relation to a person who has been arrested for an offence shall be performed by an officer who is involved in the investigation of that offence at the time when the function falls to be performed.
I think that these amendments are justified. Such a system has obtained since 1967, when designated stations were set up to deal with "breathalyser procedures"—now "Lion Intoximeter" procedures. The codes of practice which I have already mentioned are obviously intended to modernise and improve the lot of a detained person. Not every station, more especially in the rural areas, possesses the staff or facilities to deal with prisoners in the ways outlined. It therefore seems logical to designate certain stations as "custody stations" to make the best use of resources. Many chief officers have already planned such designations.
The proposals already set out in another place recognise this, but seek to utilise lower ranks on occasions. In our view, this is grossly irresponsible on the part of the legislators. As I have said, the duties plus the responsibilities of the custody officer dictate that the position must be allied to a supervisory capacity. If there are within current police establishments not enough sergeants to carry out the tasks to be given by the legislation, the answer lies not within the police service but somewhere else.
We have to recognise the actual operational police situation where, due to sickness, leave, training and other commitments, a constable may be performing temporary duty as a sergeant. It is equally apparent that where no prisoners are at a station it would be most wasteful of resources for a police sergeant to be sitting twiddling his thumbs, and he must and should be employed usefully on other duties. However, the importance which legislation is to place on the care and custody of detained persons demands that, while that is necessary, the custody officer should have no other constraints save in the most dire emergency.
I think these are very important issues for the police service. More than that, they are important for the public, and I think that the Government should give further consideration to the points that I have brought

575
out in relation to the amendment which has now been brought forward by the noble Lord. Perhaps if he replies I would then reserve what I have to say on Clause 29 until after that reply.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Plant, further by pointing out that his Amendments No. 107 and 108 appear to be directed to achieve the same ends as his Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 to the amendment on the Order Paper, so we can expedite matters by taking all these issues on board at once. They are in fact the same issues.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Plant and the advice that he gets. I accept the importance of the issues, but I should like to look first at his second amendment, which assumes that a custody officer cannot be expected to perform any other duties except in an emergency. In certain police stations it will indeed be necessary for the post of custody officer to be a full-time post. It is already the case that in the main police stations in cities and large towns there is an officer of sergeant rank employed pretty much, if not wholly, full time in supervising the detention in police custody of suspects.
The Bill will formalise and extend those responsibilities but in other cases it will continue to be quite possible, as it is now, for an officer to combine them with more general administrative and supervisory duties. In some stations it is wholly reasonable to expect a sergeant to be the appointed custody officer for the station but also to go out of the station to assist patrol officers as necessary. This does not need to involve an emergency, whether dire or not. It may simply be a matter of routine.
In contrast, this amendment would, by interfering with the freedom of chief police officers to deploy manpower to the most effective and efficient extent, either involve a very large and wasteful increase in the establishment of police forces, the additional numbers comprising sergeants acting as full-time custody officers where there were not enough people in custody to justify a full-time post; or it would force the chief officer to designate relatively few police stations, and vastly increase the distance people would have to go to be charged or questioned.
I understand the noble Lord's concern that officers shall not be asked to take on more onerous duties than can be reasonably expected of them, especially bearing in mind the responsibility involved and the disciplinary sanctions which attach to the codes of practice. On a number of occasions we have given an undertaking to the police service that we should be willing to consider applications for increases in establishment on their individual merits in cases where clear difficulties arose in practice. But we are not at all persuaded that any blanket increase in establishment is necessary.
To a large extent the duties of the custody officer represent a formalisation of current good practice; and a study of the requirements to record certain actions and events which are imposed by the Bill, and of the draft codes, reveals few which are not already part of good practice. We have now revised the codes of practice and put them into a form which will be easier to use, and there is to be a national form of custody
576
record which will simplify the sometimes complex recording procedures which are now in effect in different forces. I cannot advise the Committee to accept the second amendment.
The first amendment is intended to debar a police officer of constable rank from acting as a custody officer unless he was qualified for promotion to sergeant and acting as such under the Police Regulations. We realise that this would be an inflexible requirement and would cause practical difficulties for the police.
It is right, and we accept it, that the custody officer at a designated station should he a sergeant, and the new clause ensures that this is so. But account has to be taken of the case where the custody officer is unavoidably absent. As I have already explained, he may be called out to deal with an incident or to assist the patrol officers under his supervision. In those circumstances, a constable may have to act as custody officer when the sergeant is away from the station. There can be no guarantee that that constable will be qualified by examination for sergeant rank. If no such qualified sergeant were available, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to require the detachment of an officer to escort the arrested person to another designated station, which might well be some distance away, because he could not be kept without a custody officer. The waste of police resources in this way would be substantial and so would the inconvenience to the arrested person himself.
It is important to remember that there are some very experienced officers who, sometimes at their own wish, remain constables throughout their careers, but may well be qualified by that experience and by their personal qualities to stand in for the custody officer for a short period as needed, even though they have not passed the sergeant's examination.
I have to say to the noble Lord that his amendment would make the custody officer scheme unnecessarily and unacceptably rigid and expensive and would cause operational difficulties for the police. I hope that when he reads what I have said in tomorrow's Hansard he will, on reflection, see that we are well seized of the anxieties of the people with whom he has discussed this, and I hope that what I have said will suffice to reassure them.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Plant: I am somewhat satisfied with what the Minister has said. I want to make this part of the Bill as efficient as possible. I do not wish to see chief police officers using probationers on this type of work. I hope that the Government will look at this problem. I do not want unnecessarily to increase the sergeants' complement hut I do want to urge on—
Lord Elton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say, to expedite matters, that the question of a probationer constable seems to be slightly different. I will undertake to look at that although, of course. I cannot say what I shall come back with. The noble Lord wanted to exclude probationers as opposed to constables as a complete rank. That is a different matter which I shall look at.
Lord Plant: I am grateful for that intervention. I will very carefully read what the noble Lord the Minister said. I am sure that this is an issue which will be discussed on the police negotiating board or the advisory board, because I do not believe that the police service will be satisfied with some of the difficulties that certainly will arise with the police stations that are designated.
Lord Mishcon: I have one quick comment only to make, which I am sure the noble Lord the Minister has appreciated. The whole question of the custody officer depends, if it is to be effective, upon his independence and, if I may put this with all respect, his intelligence. One cannot provide for that in an Act of Parliament. However, one hopes that the Home Office will make it abundantly clear that it expects custody officers not only to be of the rank of sergeant but to be independent in the decisions and recommendations they make as custody officers, and, furthermore, that it is incumbent upon the police force to see that a person of some considerable intelligence is given this very responsible position. I repeat, one cannot provide for this in an Act of Parliament but the Committee may well be assured, in allowing this amendment to go forward, to a rather greater degree if the noble Lord the Minister would indicate that it is the intention of the Home Office to make this abundantly clear to the police forces.
Lord Elton: I have to say two things. First, the Home Office is always interested in good practice and it is clear that it is our intention that the role of the custody officer should be exercised by someone of independent mind and intelligence. Secondly, on the face of the Bill the requirements made on the custody officer make it very difficult for him to be overborne. If at any stage someone senior to him takes a decision which he feels needs to be called into question or which is contrary to what, in his judgment, he believes appropriate, he is required to take that concern to a person who is senior in rank to that senior person; so we are very much aware of the noble Lord's concern.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 24, line 36, at end insert—
("() Where the person to be arrested is a child or young person, a constable may not arrest him at school or other educational establishment or institution other than in exceptional circumstances where the constable reasonably believes that the arrest will be seriously obstructed if it is not executed at the school or other educational establishment or institution.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is very clear: namely, to provide a greater safeguard than exists within the code of practice against police constables entering schools to interrogate or arrest children or young people. I cannot imagine there being many circumstances which make it essential for the police to invade the sanctity of a school to pursue young offenders. Indeed, our amendment has provided for any such exceptional circumstances where a young person is out of the control of the school authorities and the teachers—for instance, where he has run amok, become violent or is in possession of a knife or a weapon—which makes it impossible for the school itself to deal with the crisis.
However, we want to ensure that the police do not use the school premises just for convenience in pursuing a young suspect simply because they know he is at the school and, therefore, it is very much simpler to carry out their duties there. I can think of no factor which would be more disturbing for the staff and pupils of a school than the intrusion of a police constable. Indeed, there has been growing concern among education authorities that schools are being increasingly used for crime investigation. Surely, again, it must be agreed that teachers are already finding it difficult in some schools in some inner city areas and in some deprived areas to establish a relationship of trust and confidentiality with their pupils. Therefore, does it not seem of the utmost importance that that already rather fragile relationship between teachers and children in some schools should not be exacerbated by the intrusion of police into the schools.
Finally, not only do we feel that this safeguard is of such great importance to the interests of pupils, young people, teachers and parents that it should be taken from the code of practice and brought into the Bill itself, but we also feel that our amendment provides a greater safeguard since the code only refers to the presence of a head teacher as necessary for the investigation of a child. The presence of parents is not mentioned. The child or young person would thus be confronted by two figures of authority and would find the experience that much more intimidating. Therefore, in the interests of the school, the children and teachers we believe this is an important amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Gaitskell: I think this is a very important amendment and I hope the Minister will agree. That is all I wish to say about it. It would be terrible if anyone voted against it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: What exactly is "exceptional"? Is the pushing of drugs by children in a school "exceptional" or not "exceptional"? I am very worried that it may not be the exception now.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My view is that "exceptional" is what the school feels it cannot deal with. I should have thought that a school would like to deal with all crises occurring among its children in order to keep that relationship of trust and confidentiality between them and their pupils. I would say that a decision about drugs would be up to the school authorities themselves.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sure we are all very sympathetic to the idea underlying this amendment. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the administrative directions to the police appended to the Judges' Rules make it clear that a juvenile should not be arrested at school if this can possibly be avoided. There has been no change of policy in that regard. The point is now covered in the code of practice on detention. I refer your Lordships to page 23 of the code where paragraph 13(c) states:
"Officers are reminded that a juvenile should not be arrested at school unless this is unavoidable. In this case the head teacher or his nominee must be informed".

579
Having said that, your Lordships will wish to know why we put this in the code and not the Bill. We are talking here essentially about a question of operational judgment. I think it would be going too far to provide that the effects of an error of judgment would be to render the arrest unlawful and, hence, resistance to the officer lawful. The fact that the amendment clearly will not do as it stands shows that it would be very difficult to regulate this matter in statutory form. It will not do because there may well he circumstances in which there is no particular reason to believe that it will be difficult to arrest a juvenile at home but in which there is a pressing need to arrest him at once—which brings in the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
Such a situation might conceivably arise where serious assaults were in progress and the police were called. I remind the Committee of a recent incident in which schoolchildren, on their way to attack another school, were found to have a frightening armoury of weapons. Let us suppose that they had reached that school: under the terms of the amendment, it might not have been possible for the police lawfully to arrest them. We do not want, in effect, to deter the police from responding to appeals for help from the school authorities because of fear about their legal powers. It seems to me pre-eminently a question that can be dealt with as a matter of guidance to the police, rather than as a matter of law. That is achieved by the passage that I have quoted from the codes. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: This touches a matter of grave importance involving children and their relationship to schools and school staff. Perhaps we may further consider the matter, in view of its great importance. Sometimes a question of principle which is of fundamental importance must take precedence over even operational requirements. We shall think again about the proposal, and, if my noble friend agrees, in the meantime I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Plant Lord Plant moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 24, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: At first reading this clause seems to be reasonable. However, your Lordships may be concerned about many inherent dangers that may arise from Clause 29(3). That subsection authorises a constable to release an arrested person after arrest, before he reaches the police station.
Baroness Trumpington: In the list of amendments that are to be taken together it states that the noble Lord w ill be speaking to Amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 95 together. I hope that he agrees.
Lord Plant: Yes, with this amendment I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95.
Amendment No. 94: Page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 95: Page 25, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
Subsection (3) authorises a constable to release a person after arrest before he reaches the police station.
580
I am strongly of the view that once a person has been arrested, the grounds for that arrest need to be inquired into by a supervisory police officer. The only satisfactory way for that to be done is by an examination of the facts by the custody officer at a police station, as specified in Clause 34, which is to be amended. If the arrest is considered by the custody officer to have been unlawful or ill-advised, an apology can be made to the person concerned there and then by the custody officer.
Let me quote an example of our anxiety about this clause. A suspect may be arrested by a police officer who releases his prisoner without taking him to a police station. Some days later the man who was arrested may complain to the police that he was assaulted by the officer while he was in his custody. There may be no corroboration of the allegation because of the passage of time. That would leave the police officer and the complainant in a most unsatisfactory position.
We appreciate that the procedure of taking every arrested person to a police station as soon as practicable after arrest may in some cases add to the inconvenience of a person who is going to be released from custody, but we believe that that should be done in all cases. It is necessary for the protection of the police and the public alike. It is hard to understand why the Bill, after prescribing so many rigid safeguards in relatively minor matters, should appear to ignore that elementary safeguard in the most important of all police functions—the power of arrest.
When those arguments were considered in another place mention was also made of the possibility of corruption. It was sought to cover that and many other possibilities by requiring a note to be made by the arresting officer. As I have already said, the police organisations are anxious that in every case there should be a note made by the arresting officer, or someone else, at a police station. That is a naïve view in relation to corruption. If an officer realises that he has made a monumental error, or if he has accepted a bribe, he is hardly likely to record the fact.
I seek to protect the integrity of the police service and the confidence of the public in that service. Everybody should be aware that, if a constable exercises his power of arrest, that fact is inquired into as soon as possible at a police station. I therefore think that we should delete subsections (2), (3) and (4), which will be slightly amended by the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: Subsections (2) to (4) require an officer who makes an arrest, but who then becomes satisfied that the arrested person is in fact innocent of any crime, to release him at once. This is by way of an exception to the general rule in subsection (1) that on arrest a person must be taken to a police station as soon as practicable.
We are well aware that there is concern among the police that the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) may lead to the possibility of corrupt practices, or at any rate allegations of corruption. We sympathise with those concerns: but we must balance this small risk—and I believe that it is small—against the undoubted interference with the liberty of the innocent

581
citizen which would arise if the subsections were deleted, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has proposed.
Cases are bound to occur from time to time in which an officer makes an arrest quite properly on the basis of the information then before him, but it quickly becomes apparent—perhaps as a result of a radio message—that the person must be innocent. It could clearly cause considerable additional inconvenience to an innocent person if he were required to be taken to a police station before being released, and it might harm relations between the police and the community in general and that person's willingness to assist the police again in particular. We take the view that it would be wrong to oblige a police officer who had arrested someone to take him to the station before he could be released, no matter how certain was the officer that he had the wrong man, or how distant was the station.
While it would be wrong wholly to dismiss the noble Lord's worry about corruption, I must point out to your Lordships' Committee that in a number of police forces officers are already authorised to release an arrested person on their own authority, without having to bring him before the station sergeant. We are not aware of any problems that have arisen in practice, and we believe that the recording requirements set out in subsections (3) and (4) will minimise such risk as exists. Not only are we not aware of problems which have arisen in practice as a result of the operation of subsection (2) in certain forces; we are aware of problems which have arisen in other forces. The Police Complaints Board has had to consider a number of complaints from wholly innocent members of the public who very much resented having to go to the police station, and one can readily imagine the unnecessary embarrassment that they would feel.
I must point out to the noble Lord that on, I think, 2nd March of this year there was an article in the Police Review which cited certain examples rather based on what I have just been talking about. It said that it hoped the clause that we are talking about survives. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I find the Minister's reply to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, in support of the amendment a little unconvincing. I wonder whether she could elaborate on the circumstances in which it would be thought desirable for an officer who had exercised in the street this, his most important function, to change his mind and admit his mistake. What is the situation, too, in the event of the arrest being wrongful, which would give the arrested citizen a right to pursue an action for damages? Would this not leave a very unsatisfactory situation so far as any future action was concerned? Is the noble Lord, Lord Plant, not indeed right in saying that his amendments would protect the interests of both the police and the public?
Baroness Trumpington: In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, if he reads Hansard I think he will see that in my original answer I have already answered the first point he made. In answer to his second point, I think I would he right in saying that the
582
person concerned could bring a complaint against the officer.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Surely there is one circumstance, at least, which will occur to the Committee, in which the subsection is necessary. When a notorious crime is committed or an escape takes place, a description of the person sought is broadcast. It is always possible that a police officer may he mistaken in identification and arrest someone in the belief that he is the fugitive. If five minutes later, the police officer hears on his radio that the person concerned has been apprehended, he will obviously realise at once that he has made a mistake and he ought therefore immediately to release the person whom he has arrested. In those circumstances, to insist that the person arrested be dragged to a police station, perhaps some distance away, and then solemnly taken before a senior officer, would surely not only waste everybody's time, but could be derogatory to the person concerned. That person will have been seen to be under arrest for a longer period; he will have been seen, possibly by acquaintances, being taken into a police station, with all the embarrassing awkwardness that that causes. In those circumstances to insist that because an arrest has been made the whole procedure must be gone though, seems grossly unfair to the arrested person and a waste of everybody else's time. I hope my noble friend will resist the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: If I may say so, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said. I rise only to try to delete one subsection, but for a very different reason. I do so in the lamentable absence of the noble Lord. Lord Renton, who might—I have no authority to say that he would—have raised the same point. We are always anxious to economise in language in our statutes and to be as concise as possible. I ask the Committee to look at subsections (3) and (4), with which we are dealing. I cannot for the life of me see any reason why, instead of two subsections, there should not be one, which would read:
"A constable who releases a person under subsection (2) above shall record the fact that he has done so",
and which would then go on,
"and shall make such record as soon as is practicable".
There could then be added, if wished, the words, "after the release". To have two subsections for a matter of this kind is not very good draftsmanship.
Baroness Trumpington: I take the point. We shall study it in depth.
Lord Plant: Clearly, I am on a sticky wicket, and so I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Nigerian Ex-Minister: Abduction
3.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the abduction of Mr. Umaru Dikko which is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the abduction of Mr. Umaru Dikko which will bring the House up to date on developments since the Statement by my right honourable and learned friend in the House on Friday. Police and other inquiries are continuing. I will make a further statement to the House later this week.
"As the House will know, a British Caledonian aircraft with its crew and passengers was unlawfully detained by the Nigerian authorities in Lagos from 5th to 7th July. We protested strongly to the Nigerian authorities both in London and in Lagos at this totally unjustified and unlawful act. Subsequently we have made a further strong protest about the conditions under which the passengers were held at Lagos airport. The plane was released at 14.00 local time on Saturday 7th July and arrived back in the United Kingdom at about 4.30 on the Sunday morning.
"I understand that air services between the United Kingdom and Nigeria are now functioning normally.
"Meanwhile, the police are continuing their inquiries into the abduction of Mr. Dikko and the attempts to smuggle people out of the country. I am advised that these have made some progress, but that they are not yet complete, not least because it has only just become possible for the police to start questioning Mr. Dikko. I understand that some criminal charges are likely to be brought quite soon. I appreciate, of course, that the House wishes to have the fullest and earliest possible information on these aspects. But it is important that any decisions that have to he taken should be based on the fullest available information, and should not interfere with or prejudice police inquiries. That is why neither I nor my right honourable and learned friend can make a definitive Statement on these aspects today and why I may have to decline to answer fully some of the questions which may be put to me.
"Nevertheless, it is already clear that if the police are to be able to complete their inquiries satisfactorily, they will need to interview members of the Nigerian High Commission staff. This need arises from the presence at Stansted airport on 5th July of at least one member of the Nigerian High Commission staff and vehicles from that high commission. The Nigerian High Commissioner has, accordingly, today been asked specifically to allow the police to carry out the necessary interviews, and told that we require a very early reply to this request.
"As the House will know, it is the duty of all persons enjoying privileges and immunities in accordance with the Vienna Convention to respect the laws and regulations of their host country. It is
584
plain that the commission of acts of violence on British territory, and the plotting of the abduction of a person from the United Kingdom, is a matter of the gravest concern. Not least in view of the good relations which have traditionally existed between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, I am sure that the House will join me in looking for an early and positive response from the Nigerian High Commissioner. As I have already made clear, the Government will keep the House fully informed of further developments."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We on this side of the House do not wish to embarrass or prejudice the continuing inquiries which are being made into this grave matter. Not surprisingly, some criminal charges are likely to be brought quite soon. I say "not surprisingly", in view of matters which are already publicly known. However, this makes imperative the request that we must not press unduly for precise particulars as to who is to be charged and what may be the nature of the charges. I venture to think that the whole House will endorse the decision of the Government to ask the Nigerian High Commissioner to allow the police to carry out the necessary inquiries with certain members of the Nigerian High Commission staff. As has been said, we know of the presence of at least one member of that staff and of vehicles from the High Commission at Stansted airport at the material time.
As has been said in the Statement, it is also right, that an early reply should be given to the communication from the Foreign Office. I venture to think that I am expressing the view of the House when I say that refusal of that request would be wholly unacceptable and, if I may say so, quite contrary to international comity. It is basic to the Vienna Convention, creating diplomatic privileges and immunities, that diplomats and their staffs should respect the laws of their host country. We have had bitter, recent experience on our own shores of acts of violence by those sheltering behind diplomatic immunity. Clearly, there must be a stop to this kind of activity. No country, or people, can allow this to happen, least of all to continue. We have traditionally had excellent relations with Nigeria and current events are deeply saddening to us. Many of us have excellent friends there. I shall not name any of them because I might merely embarrass them. We therefore greatly hope that there will now be a favourable response from the Nigerian High Commission to the request that has so reasonably been made.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, in view of the intemperate attack made on this country yesterday by General Buhari, and the fact disclosed to this House on Friday that no application had been made for the extradition of Mr. Dikko, it may well be that the general does not appreciate the great tradition of this country in these matters and that what we are objecting to particularly is the completely unlawful way in which the attempted removal of Mr. Dikko from this jurisdiction took

585
place. Is it not important that no kind of application was made by Nigeria for the extradition of Mr. Dikko, whatever the legitimacy or otherwise of the complaints against him? Is it not necessary to bring this home to the Government of Nigeria in view of the very good relations that this country has enjoyed with Nigeria in the past? Can the noble Baroness say whether there had been any informal approaches by the Nigerian Government to our Government—a sounding operation on extradition, as it were—or whether there had been no approach of that kind at all?
Baroness Young: My Lords. I should like to thank both noble Lords for their response to the Statement. I should like particularly to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for what he said in this very difficult situation. His remarks were very helpful in setting out the views in all parts of the House on this matter. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for not pressing me on the particulars of the case which I would not be in a position to give. I am grateful that he has endorsed the Government's request to the Nigerian High Commissioner to co-operate fully with the police in their inquiries on this matter. We hope that we shall receive an early response to this request that has been made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
As the noble and learned Lord rightly says and as the Statement makes clear, it is the duty of those who enjoy diplomatic immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the countries which are their host country. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked two points about this matter. We do not have an extradition treaty with Nigeria. In fact, we do not have an extradition treaty with any of the Commonwealth countries. The noble Lord also asked about informal talks. I can tell him that there have been no such informal approaches.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether any explanation or perhaps apology has been offered by the Nigerian Government for the detention of the British Caledonian aircraft and its passengers?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer I think to that question is that there has been no further explanation. We are of course glad that there is now once again normal air traffic between the United Kingdom and Nigeria.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that if, as I believe is the case, the Nigerian Government deny all responsibility for this outrage, it is up to them to do their best to discover who is responsible and, if possible, to bring them to justice? If, on the other hand, the Nigerian Government, by any means, implicitly or explicitly, admit responsibility, surely, it is for them to express great regrets and to say that so far as they are concerned it will never happen again.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the present statement of the Nigerian Government to the reaction of our calling in the Nigerian High Commissioner is that they have publicly denied any involvement in this affair at all.
586
Nevertheless, as we have asked the Nigerian High Commissioner if he will co-operate with the police in their inquiries, we hope that he will do so.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while not wishing to render a delicate atmosphere any more delicate, may I ask whether the noble Baroness can inform the House if any explanation at all so far has been given by the Nigerian Government as to why the crates were addressed to the Ministry of External Affairs?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to answer that question.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I recall that some years ago Mr. Kwesi Armah was Ghanaian High Commissioner here, was subsequently charged with an offence that the Ghanaian Government wanted him charged with, and was tried at the Central Criminal Court. I remember that it was the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, who defended him. Cannot the Nigerian Government's attention be drawn to that, so that they can take similar action over Mr. Dikko?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not aware of the case to which the noble Lord. Lord Pitt, has drawn attention. I shall study carefully what he has said and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
4.7 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 29.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 95A:
Page 25, line 9, at end insert ("and if such delay does not exceed two hours").
The noble Lord said: This point has already been touched upon by my noble friend Lord Mishcon—
Baroness Trumpington: May I put it to the noble Lord that we are also, I hope, speaking to Amendment No. 95B?
Lord Gifford: That is so.
Amendment No. 95B: Page 25, line 12, at end insert—
("() Where there is delay as provided in subsection (5) above, then the relevant time for the purposes of section 39 below shall he the time of the person's arrest.").
Where someone has been arrested and is not taken immediately to a police station, the clock will not begin to tick until he does in fact get to the police station. If a police officer spends many hours in taking a person to various other places, the maximum time of detention will be considerably extended by that amount. That is undesirable. It will often be reasonable for a police officer to take a suspect to various places. I have known cases where a burglar has been in the company of police around the county pointing out the houses that he has burgled. I have known cases where hidden loot has been found through the suspect taking police to the spot where it was hidden. All that can take time. It should be done after someone has been taken to a police station under the authority of the custody officer. This provision

587
should only be for exceptional cases of short duration. That is why I have sought to limit it. If it is going to take more than two hours, the right course is surely to involve the custody officer, get the person to a police station and subsequently carry out the sort of investigation that I have described. This is an important matter, I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: It might help if I deal immediately with Amendment No. 95B. I have already addressed the Committee on this matter. The short and I hope succinct point is that under subsection (5), there is a period allowed—not specified—in regard to the length of time for an investigation to be carried out before someone is taken to a police station. All that I am saying is that when that happens from the point of view of time of detention which is to be sanctioned by the police and then by the court, the clock should start ticking as from the time of arrest, rather than from the time of the arrival at the police station. I hope that the noble Baroness, in the very short time between when I made that point and she indicated something to the contrary, will have become converted.
Baroness Trumpington: I am speaking to both Amendments, Nos. 95A and 95B. On 95A, I should like to point out that subsection (5) permits delay in taking an arrested person to a police station if his presence elsewhere is necessary in order to carry out such investigations as it is reasonable to carry out immediately. The wording of the subsection is already drawn extremely tightly. As I have explained, delay is permitted only if the investigations may be carried out immediately. As an additional safeguard, subsection (6) requires the reasons for any delay to be recorded when the person is taken to a police station. I do not believe that it would be practicable to go further and impose rigid time limits on the delay, as the noble Lord suggests. For most cases, the type of investigation that the subsection covers should certainly be completed inside two hours, but some may take longer.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, I, too, could give examples. I should point out also that the noble Lord's amendment would mean that the detention would be unlawful if there was a delay of more than two hours in reaching a police station. I do not believe that arbitrary time limits would either assist the proper investigation of offences, or, in fact, serve any useful purpose as a safeguard. Therefore, I advise your Lordships to reject this particular amendment.
In regard to Amendment No. 95B, which my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have touched on already, I must repeat my noble friend's words that under Clause 39 the time limits on detention start from the relevant time, which for the sort of case we are discussing is defined to be the time a person arrives at a police station. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would start the detention clock at the moment of arrest if delay does occur in taking the person to a station.
Of course, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the person who is placed under arrest loses his liberty from that moment—I do not think that he actually did say that, but it is a fact—and not from the time when
588
he is taken to a police station. But it is important to remember that the Bill will impose wholly new time-keeping disciplines on the police. As the Committee will know, the only judgment of time that has to be made at present is whether or not it will be practicable to bring an arrested person before a court within 24 hours.
In contrast, the Bill sets out a detailed sequence of reviews and limits. In many ways, of course, it reflects current good practice in police stations, but the obligation it places upon the police to work with an eye to the clock, against the clock, is wholly new. Custody officers at police stations, particularly busy police stations, will have to exercise a continuing scrutiny of the progress of cases. I suggest that it would present serious practical difficulties if there were not a clear and agreed starting point for the detention clock to run.
Often the exact time that an arrest is made will not be known, particularly in the case of situations involving public disorder, and it would be thoroughly confusing if a number of persons arrested at the same incident and brought to a police station at the same time had personal detention clocks showing different times because some had been waiting in the police coach for longer than others following their arrest. The proposed amendment undoubtedly would lead to disputes about detention times which were not readily capable of settlement. For example, disputes could arise where the constable searched a person on arrest, under Clause 31. Was this for evidence, and, if so, was that part of the investigation which resulted in delay?
The amendment would also tend to undermine what we regard as the very important principle that the custody officer is personally responsible for the treatment of all persons detained at his police station, including the provision of reviews of detention at the appropriate time and the release of persons at the appropriate time. It is difficult to expect him to undertake this responsibility, which can, of course, have the severest disciplinary consequences if some part of the period of detention is outside his control, supervision and indeed knowledge.
Of course, in matters of this kind we should rightly be very chary of placing issues of administration above the liberty of the individual, but what I hope I have shown is that this is more than a matter of simple administrative convenience. The role of the custody officer is central to the safeguards underlying the detention scheme in the Bill, and anything which undermined the effectiveness of his control would be against the best interests of the detained person.
Moreover, in practical terms, in the great majority of cases the difference between the time of arrest and the time of detention is likely to be so small as to have no significant effect on the overall length of detention. In general, offences are committed locally and investigated locally. Nor, in reality, does this open up a large loophole in the regulation of detention. Subsection (6) requires an explanation of the reasons for delay to be recorded on arrival at the police station, and any abuse of the discretion will be readily checkable.
I do not accept that these provisions will tempt the police to abuse their powers in this area. If anything,

589
there would be a greater temptation to do so if impracticable and artificial restrictions were imposed in statutory form. The Royal Commission placed great weight on workability as a criterion of any legislative proposal, and I remind the Committee that the commission recommended quite clearly, in paragraph 3.102 of its report, that the time limit should begin to operate from the time of arrival at the police station rather than the time of arrest.
I cannot claim that this is a straighforward matter and that it is easy to strike the right balance between sensible operational requirements and the right of the individual, hut, overall, the practical benefits for suspects that the amendment would bring are so small, relative to the problems it would cause the police and the damage it would do to the effective performance of the custody officer's role, that I have to advise against the Committee's accepting this amendment. I am sorry that I have not been succinct.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Very briefly, I should like to say that on this Bill we are all worried about the citizen who is detained. We are worried also about the police powers. It seems to me that we are in danger here of crossing every "i" and trying to dot every "t", or vice versa, to such an extent that I shall be as muddled as I have just been, and the police officer might be also. It is wrong to give the police so little flexibility that they will be endlessly time watching, watch stopping, etc. I think we have gone too far, and certainly I would resist this amendment.
Lord Gifford: The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has made out a case based on convenience, but, with respect to her, she has missed the point. She says that new disciplines as to time are being imposed by the Bill. But the point is that far longer time is being asked for in this Bill for the detention of suspects. The Government want 96 hours; we have not yet come to that. Under this provision, someone can be detained for 96 hours plus whatever time it is going to take to make these reasonable investigations. Two alternatives have been put forward from these Benches. To my mind, the one that is put forward by my noble friend Lord Mishcon is the better one. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment in favour of his.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 95B:
[Printed earlier: col. 586.]
The noble Lord said: We are speaking to this amendment. I do not want to get this out of perspective, and, with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, I think we are liable to do so if we follow along just a generalised path. I would agree with the noble Baroness completely—and I believe that all your Lordships would agree—that we are anxious not to inhibit the police; we are anxious not to prevent them or to impede them from carrying out the very difficult duties that they have to perform. We are equally anxious to help them in the proper prevention of crime. All that is common ground. What we are also trying to do is to ensure that, when there is a question of detention of somebody, that detention period is
590
properly governed not by inflexible rules and regulations, but by directives that are clearly given in the Bill as to how long a period there should be for detention before the police themselves, at a proper level of rank, can sanction an extension, and then after that the courts.
However, there is an absurdity—if your Lordships will forgive me for using that strong word—if we allow subsection (5) to stand as it is. I do ask the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, with her usual breadth of mind, to look at this clause and to follow me in my argument even if she disagrees with it. The clause provides perfectly properly (and I am not quarrelling with the clause; my noble friends and I do not quarrel with it) that:
"Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent a constable delaying taking a person who has been arrested to a police station if the presence of that person elsewhere is necessary in order to carry out such investigations as it is reasonable to carry out immediately".
We are not objecting to that provision. If the officer has to carry out investigations and feels that he ought to do so before taking the person to a police station and that is convenient and sensible, then he ought to be able to do it and we say "Amen" to that.
But where we do not continue to say "Amen" is in this connection. You cannot have a situation where a police officer, perfectly understandably—he will not be acting wickedly—says to himself "Now look, if I take accused 'A' straight to the police station and then take him out afterwards in order to carry out the investigations that I want to carry out, the clock will start ticking as from the time I get to the police station. I feel that this investigation is going to take me a long time and I do not feel that I want to be bothered with going to the court on this case and trying to get an extension. So the sensible thing for me to do is not to take the accused to the police station right away but to carry out the investigations before taking him to the police station."
There is no limit to the time that those investigations can take and I do not ask for a limit for the time during which the investigations can take place. But they can take 24 hours. Indeed, they could take 48 hours. I know that I am dealing now with times which are not as a rule practicable, but under the Bill it could be so. We really cannot have administrative arguments because, for example, two or three people are arrested at different times and there are arguments about when the clock starts and whether we make it as from the time of the arrest and so on.
Those arguments are as nothing as compared with the sacrosanct principle that we are trying to build into this Bill that you cannot hold people for a length of time which is unreasonable without at least getting the sanction of the courts and nor can you hold them, before charging them, for longer than the absolute maximum limit. If you have that principle then you have to build fences round it to make sure that you cannot have incursions made into it which are completely unjust.
So, I repeat, we do not attack the investigation period before going to the police station. We do not attack the power to investigate before taking someone to a police station. We merely say: please do not make fools of this part of the Bill and those who are to carry it out by giving an option which is an all too obvious

591
one of having the investigations first and not after taking to the police station, because that automatically extends the time. We therefore say: please accept this amendment which makes the logical time the time of the arrest when advantage is taken, perfectly properly under sub-section (5), for the investigations to be carried out.
Lord Foot: I think it would be convenient if I intervened at this point before the Minister seeks to reply, because I want to deal with some of the remarks that the noble Baroness made in the course of our discussions on the previous amendment. I have already taken the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the Committee the astonishing ways in which some of the provisions of this Bill contrast with similar provisions in the Scottish Act of 1980. Here we have vet another example of how the Government dealt with the matter in one way in Scotland but now propose to deal with the matter in a quite different way in England and Wales. Under Section 2 of the Scottish Act of 1980 it is quite clearly provided that the maximum period for which a person may be detained under similar provisions to the ones which we are discussing here, is six hours. As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said, we shall come to that later in the Bill.
However, I want to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that under the Scottish Act not only is the time of detention limited to an overall period of six hours which cannot in any circumstances be exceeded, but it is perfectly clearly laid down in Section 2 that the period starts to run from the moment that the person is originally detained. What has to be done under Section 2(4) is that:
"when a constable detains a person under [the original power] he shall inform the person of his suspicion, of the general nature of the offence which he suspects has been or is being committed and of the reason for the detention: and there shall be recorded—

(a) the place where detention begins and the police station or other premises to which the person is taken;

(b) the general nature of the suspected offence;

and then paragraph (c) is the important paragraph—
the time when detention under subsection (1) above begins and the time of the person's arrival at the police station or other premises".
Under the Scottish Act none of the anxieties which were expressed by the noble Baroness just now about the working of this principle was foreseen. Indeed, these provisions which make the six-hour period start to run from the moment when the person is first detained—first arrested in our language—were actively commended to us by the representatives of the Government. Indeed, it was the predecessor of this Government—not a Labour Government—which actively and positively recommended this arrangement to us as being the appropriate arrangement. It was made on the recommendation of the Lord Advocate of the time and the representatives of the Government at the Scottish Office. In recommending it to the Committee or the House at that time they were only carrying through and responding to the recommendations which had been made by the Thomson Committee which led to the Scottish Act of 1980.
Later in our proceedings I shall again and again have to draw attention to the way in which the measures which are now being proposed for England and Wales
592
so starkly contrast with the arrangements under the Scottish Act. But in this case there can be no doubt. If the noble Baroness is right in saying that provisions of the kind contained in the Scottish Act would work with great difficulty in this country, perhaps she would be good enough to consult the Scottish Office and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to ascertain how this has worked out in Scotland during the last four years, and whether any of the difficulties which she foresees have, in fact, been encountered. She will not be able to do that now, and it would be unreasonable for me to ask her to do so, but it could well be, could it not, that between now and the Report stage some report can be made to your Lordships' House upon the way in which these matters have worked out in Scotland?
Lord Hooson: I think that my noble friend Lord Foot is performing a singular service to the Committee by drawing our attention to what happened in 1980 and to the provisions of the Scottish Act. It is correct that there are certain differences in Scottish procedure, to which we must have regard, but as these provisions have now been in operation for about four years they must have been monitored, and in the consideration of this Bill it would be extremely helpful if we had some information from the Government on the performance and the efficacy of the provisions in Scotland, with due allowance being made for the differences in Scottish procedure.
Baroness Trumpington: On the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised, there is no question of 96 hours entering into this situation. At page 24, line 34, of the Bill it says:
"where a person is arrested by a constable at any place other than a police station he shall be taken to a police station by a constable as soon as practicable after the arrest".
We are not dealing with the situation of 96 hours' detention in this context, and I believe that it is better that we leave the question of detention for 96 hours until we reach that point in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave various examples of his argument. Perhaps I may put a point to him. There has already been agreement over amendments with regard to the custody officer, and that matter provides another good example of the need for the detention clock to start on arrival at the police station. If a person kicks up a fight on arrest and the officer has to take him alone to a non-designated station, there may be quite a palaver before he can get to the station.
Lord Mishcon: I ask the noble Baroness to excuse me, but we are all conscious of the time and the number of amendments with which we have to deal. If she will forgive me for saying so, I am specifically dealing with subsection (5), where the police, before taking someone to a police station, want to carry out investigations. That is the sole point at which I direct this amendment, and it will waste a great deal of time if we deal with examples which are just not germane to the amendment which I am moving.
Baroness Trumpington: If the noble Lord had had the kindness to hear me out he would have realised

593
where I was leading. Why should a violent person be better off time-wise than someone who submits meekly to arrest? In the interests of time, I want to get on.
Lord Mishcon: That is not subsection (5).
Baroness Trumpington: This is the matter with which we are dealing in the amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: I must interrupt for the last time. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will not think me discourteous because she knows that we all have the highest regard for her and that we never wish to be rude. I am dealing with subsection (5), which has nothing to do with a violent prisoner and absolutely nothing to do with someone who withstands arrest, detention or anything else. It is a question of where the police want to carry out investigations, and under subsection (5) they are permitted to do so before taking someone to a police station. That is the only case with which I am dealing. If the noble Baroness has been wrongly briefed on this matter. I hope that she will reprimand those concerned.
Baroness Trumpington: No, I was not wrongly briefed. The case is relevant because the investigation concerned might involve the search of the person for evidence. So I am perfectly right in what I said.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised the question of the Scottish situation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. The Royal Commission was well aware of the position in Scotland, but in paragraph 3.102 it recommended that the clock should begin on arrival at the station. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure was fully aware of the six-hour limit in Scotland, but, as I have just said, it took the view, based on close study of the situation in police stations here, that such a limit would be quite unrealistically short. I think I have made all the points that I wish to make, and I shall not change my mind. It is up to the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: Indeed, it is. I think that the noble Baroness will regard me a little more kindly if later she looks at her brief and finds that it is a brief on Amendment No. 95A and not Amendment No. 95B.
Baroness Trumpington: No.
Lord Mishcon: Having said that, I think it is time that the opinion of the Committee was taken.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 95B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Amherst, E.

Birk, B.

Ardwick, L.

Blyton, L.

Attlee, E.

Boston of Faversham, L

594

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Caradon, L.

Mar, C.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Chitnis, L.

Monson, L.

Collison, L.

Morris, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peart, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Rhodes, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gifford, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Soper, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Hooson, L.

Stone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Leatherland, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Listowel, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gormanston, V.

Allerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Alport, L.

Greenway, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Avon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bauer, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bellwin, L.

Hayter, L.

Beloff, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belper, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ilchester, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Caithness, E.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kilmany, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cockfield, L.

Lloyd, L.

Colwyn, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Daventry, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

De Freyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L.

Margadale, L.

Denning, L.

Marley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Donegall, M.

Mersey, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Onslow, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glanusk, L.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Penrhyn, L.

595

Plant, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Sudeley, L.

Porritt, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Terrington, L.

Reay, L.

Teviot, L.

Reigate, L.

Teynham, L.

Renton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trefgarne, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trenchard, V.

Saltoun, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Sandford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Selkirk, E.

Vivian, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Somers, L.

Wynford, L.

Stamp, L.

Young, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 25, line 15, after ("1971;") insert—
("(aa) section 34(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972;").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (7) sets out various exceptions to the general rule in subsection (1) that an arrested person must he taken as soon as practicable to a police station. One omission from subsection (7), which this amendment rectifies, is a reference to Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972. This section empowers a constable who arrests a person for being drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable to take him to what the 1972 Act describes as a
"place approved for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State as a treatment centre for alcoholics";
in other words, a detoxification centre or "wet shelter".
I hope there will be general agreement that the police should continue to be able to exercise the discretion given to them in 1972 where this is possible. It is plainly desirable that methods other than criminal prosecution should be attempted, within reason and where practicable, in dealing with drunkenness offenders, and when we come to Clause 35 I shall have a word or two to say about experimental police cautioning schemes which are now in progress. For the purposes of Clause 29, however, I hope that I have already said enough to persuade your Lordships that the discretion in Section 34 of the 1972 Act should be retained. I beg to move.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Search upon arrest for an offence]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 96A I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 97.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 25, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 34 and insert—
("(1) A constable may search an arrested person, in any case where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97A and 97B.
Amendment No. 97A: Page 25, line 37, at end insert ("in any such case").
Amendment No. 97B: Page 25, line 38, leave out ("him") and insert ("the arrested person").
These are purely drafting amendments which seek to clarify the opening provisions of Clause 31 without altering their effect, and I invite your Lordships to support that editorial decision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 97ZA:
Page 25, line 35, at end insert—
("and a constable earring out a search under this section shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, make a record of the details of the search, including all items seized pursuant to the powers in this section.")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment but one which is founded upon an important principle. As the Committee will be aware, Clause 31, which this amendment seeks to amend, is a clause dealing with the exercise of a power of search by a police constable other than at a police station. The effect of the amendment, if carried, will be that a constable carrying out such a search, "shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, make a record of the details of the search, including all items seized pursuant to the powers in this section".
I suggest that there are three substantial and overwhelming reasons why the amendment should be accepted. First, the power of search is a substantial trespass upon human liberty and upon privacy. Many of the persons searched under these provisions will be people who are later not in any way proceeded against, of if proceeded against may well be later acquitted.
Secondly, the fact that it is not at a police station makes it all the more important that such a record should he kept. As those of us who practise in the criminal courts well know, when a person is searched at a police station there is the well known part of the charge sheet which is there reserved to record any property that is found upon him, but where a search under Clause 31 takes place outside a police station then it should be made clear in order to avoid any argument in future, that the strictest documentary proof should be made of that particular search.
Lastly, although we are dealing here with a case of a police constable searching after arrest, it is not a very different situation from the stop and search provision in Clause 3, where it is incumbent upon the officer to make a detailed record of each and every article that is seized. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment seeks to require a constable who searches a person under this clause to make a detailed record as soon as is practicable. I entirely sympathise with the principle underlying the amendment, but I believe that its requirements are already effectively covered in the Bill and the draft codes of practice.
So far as searches of persons are concerned, paragraph 4.3 of the draft code governing detention.

597
together with Clause 52, require a list of property in the possession of a detained person, or taken from him on arrest, to be compiled on arrival at the police station. This will be noted in the custody record and the person is entitled to a copy during the 12 months following his release, under paragraph 2.4 of the code.
Searches of premises will be covered by Clause 19. Thus the occupier of the premises and the owner of the articles seized will be entitled to a record of what was seized within a reasonable time of requesting one under Clause 19(7) and (8).
Furthermore, Clause 31(9) ensures that articles which have been seized on the grounds that they may be used to injure persons or assist in an excape may not be retained once the person is released. Subsection (10) applies the provisions of Clauses 20 and 21 to all other seized articles. Thus the person from whom they were seized must be allowed access to them or a copy, unless this would prejudice the investigation, and their retention by the police will be governed by Clause 21.
That is rather a condensed recital of the provisions of the Bill and the code, but I hope it suffices to show that we intend precisely what the noble Lord desires.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The only difference between the Minister and myself in this matter is whether the provision and the protection should be enshrined in the Bill, or whether it should remain in the code of practice. I believe that the argument I have put forward is a logical one. Under Clause 3 a person who has not been arrested, but who has been stopped and has had property taken from him, has the protection enshrined in Clause 3(6) of having a record made of the property taken. The question that I ask rhetorically is where another person—again, with the same presumption of innocence engulfing him—has not only been stopped, but has also suffered the further indignity of arrest and has been searched, can there in logic be any justification for drawing a distinction between this second person and the person dealt with in Clause 3? In my respectful submission it is wrong that such a distinction should be drawn. I accept everything that the Minister said about the code of practice. The only issue is whether it should be written into the Bill. Since Parliament has chosen, and accepted, that it should be so incorporated in Clause 3, why not have the same provision included with the more serious conditions of Clause 31?
Lord Renton: I wonder whether the noble Lord really has considered whether it is necessary and desirable for us to go into quite so much detail in our legislation, especially when a Minister has pointed out that the matter will be covered in other ways in circumstances where detail is expected. In view of the explanation that we have had from my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, I consider that this is not the kind of detail that we should insist upon.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I wonder whether the noble Lord has taken on board the point that I was making. It could be that the Government take the view that all these matters could be incorporated in the code of practice. But in relation to stop and search, a different decision was taken because it was considered that the
598
stopping, searching and seizure provision was such an important matter that it should be written into the Bill. If that is so, the stopping, arresting, searching and seizure provision is even more important. The rhetorical question I ask of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is: how can he draw a distinction between the two and the decision that has already been taken by the Committee on Clause 3?
Lord Renton: Several distinctions could be made. One is the enforceability of the provision and the consequences of not obeying it. I do not think that in this case we are likely to find that anything will he very consequential when no record is made as a result of the statutory provision rather than a record being made in pursuit of the code of practice. In any event, it would I assume, he a matter for police discipline. This is a mainly administrative question, concerned with the operation of the police forces. I should have thought that this is not the type of penal provision to put into a Bill of this kind.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I would add a couple of points. The first is that we want to beware of the danger of assuming that there are different orders of importance, or enforceability, in regard to matters which are in the Bill and in the code of practice, because as soon as your Lordships start to elevate pieces of the code of practice from the code into the Bill, you draw attention not only to their importance but also, in your Lordships' apparent opinion, to the lesser importance of things that remain in the code of practice. The inference from that is that the code of practice does not matter so much. That is something we should be on our guard against.
The noble Lord asked a rhetorical question of my noble friend and my noble friend gallantly and, if I understand the meaning of the word "rhetorical", superfluously answered it. I would add that historically the code of practice on stop and search, the provisions for which are in Clause 3, pre-date the decision to have a code of practice. I hope the noble Lord is seized of the point that the code of practice was invented after that clause was drafted. That is why it is there. I think it is quite proper to leave it there, and your Lordships have agreed that the clause should stand part. But that is why elsewhere in the Bill these points are put into the code of practice, which has the advantage of being enforceable by discipline, but not arguable in the courts. That means that it can be expressed in language which will he understood with ease by the police constable and also by the public, who will pray this code of practice in aid against the police if they feel that it has not been followed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask my noble friend a question which, unusually in this Chamber, is a genuine request for information and not a technique of dialectic? If a person who has been searched has a complaint that perhaps an article has been stolen or mislaid, and he desires to take civil proceedings against the police officer concerned, would his position in law be different if failure to keep a record was merely—I use the word "merely" deliberately—a breach of the code of practice, rather than a breach of the statute?
Lord Renton: It would be no different at all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Let the Minister answer.
Lord Elton: I am quite content for my noble friend to discuss this with my other noble friend for a moment, if he wishes to do so, for obvious reasons. But the first reflection that occurs to me is that the theft by the constable, which is what it would be, would be a theft, whatever the state of the law in relation to the keeping of records.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend has misunderstood. It need not necessarily be a theft, but merely, through neglect in regard to a large number of articles, that one item is lost. If the article is lost, the person concerned sues the police constable for, presumably, some form of negligence in dealing with his property.
Lord Denning: May I —
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord sometimes comes to my aid and sometimes to my embarrassment. It is usually best to find out which before I speak.
Lord Denning: Let me say, in answer to what my noble friend said, that it would make no difference in the civil court whether it was in the code of practice or on the statute. It would be just the same. If the constable has acted wrongly he would be liable for damages, but otherwise he would be quite all right.
Lord Elton: Even if I did have a different view, after that your Lordships would not believe me.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: If I may venture to do so, I think that one can go further even in the criminal situation than what the noble and learned Lord has said in relation to a civil situation. I apprehend, and I shall be very glad to be corrected by the noble and learned Lord if I am wrong, that in relation to stop and search, the failure to make a documentary record would not invalidate the stop and search because it is something which belongs to a point in time later than the stop and search. Again, if this amendment were to be incorporated into Clause 31, in the criminal context it would in no way invalidate the arrest.
The Minister has made a powerful argument in saying that it is dangerous to elevate certain parts of the draft code by incorporation in the Bill itself. I believe the converse to be true. Where matters are matters which are utterly important to the very essence of human liberty, omission from the Bill itself when other comparable matters have already been included can give the public the wrong idea. Nevertheless, we feel that it would be wrong to divide the Committee on this matter at this stage. We shall probably wish to return to it later at an appropriate stage, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton: I beg to move Amendment No. 97A to which I spoke with Amendment No. 96A.
[Printed earlier: col. 596.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton: I beg to move Amendment No. 97B, to which I also spoke with Amendment No. 96A.
[Printed earlier: col. 596.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 97C:
Page 26, line 1, leave out ("offence") and insert ("the offence for which he has been arrested or any offence closely connected therewith")
The noble Lord said: This, again, in our submission is a very important amendment dealing with an important matter of principle. The provision at the moment entitles a constable who has arrested a suspect outside a police station to search him first, for an article,
"which he might use to assist him to escape from police detention; or
(ii) which might be evidence"—
I stress the words,
"relating to an offence".
It in no way limits the search to an offence that is connected with the arrest that has taken place. That, I would respectfully suggest to the Committee, is strange for at least two reasons. First, it is strange in the light of the further power that is given to the same constable by subsection (2)(b):
"to enter and search any premises in which he was when arrested or immediately before he was arrested for evidence relating to the offence",
Then there follow the words,
"for which he has been arrested".
In other words, the power to search property is circumscribed by the condition that it must be in relation to the offence for which he has been arrested. The power to search the person is completely open-ended.
My second reason for objecting is that, although it has been stressed in another place that that power of search upon arrest outside a police station does not enlarge the powers of the police, I would respectfully differ with the noble Lord the Minister on that matter. I believe that the answer to the issue lies in paragraph 27 of the Royal Commission's report on the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in England and Wales—the part dealing with procedure. In paragraph 27 there is a quotation from the current fourth edition of Halsbury's Laws of England. It reads as follows:
"There is no general common law right to search a person who has been arrested but such a person may be searched if there are reasonable grounds for believing:

(1) that he has on his person any weapon with which he might do himself or others an injury or any implement with which he might effect an escape or,

(2) that he has in his possession evidence which is material to the offence with which he is charged."

It would seem that the Government here are going much further than the common law powers which a police constable has at the present moment. The purpose of the amendment is to limit the constable's powers to those which are extant at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Clause 31 deals with searches of a person and the premises or vehicle he was in at the time of his arrest. Under subsection (2)(a)(ii) the police have power to search an arrested person for evidence relating to an offence. This reflects the obvious need for the police to check there and then for articles which bear on the arrest and which could otherwise disappear on the journey to the police station. The police have had bitter experience of evidence being thrown out of the windows of police cars or tucked under the seat.
As drafted on introduction to another place, this provision permitted a search only for evidence of the offence for which the person was arrested. Subsection (2)(a) was amended in another place to refer to any offence rather than the offence for which the person had been arrested. Before I deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, I should briefly explain the purpose of the two amendments to this clause in my name on the Marshalled List, Amendments Nos. 98 and 99. These amendments are consequential and should have been made in another place. Clearly, if your Lordships accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, my amendments would not be appropriate and, equally clearly, if your Lordships reject his amendment, my amendments will be desirable.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, would partially reverse the change made in another place. If your Lordships accepted it, a search would be permitted only for evidence of the offence for which the person was arrested or a closely connected offence. The amendment made in another place removed the restriction that the purpose of the search must relate to the offence for which the arrest took place. This was seen as being an artificial restriction. The slight broadening of the description of the offence proposed by the noble Lord does not really remove that artificiality. It merely modifies it. If a constable reasonably believes that a person he has arrested has on him evidence relating to an offence, there is no reason why a search for it should have to wait until the police station when there is a risk that the person may try to dispose of the evidence on the journey—which he may of course have a very strong incentive to do. If, for example, an officer arrests someone for burglary and he replies to the caution in a way which suggests that he may be concealing evidence of another more serious offence, then the case for a quick search is both obvious and compelling.
This amendment would impose a restriction which would serve no useful purpose. Subsection (4) already requires reasonable grounds for suspicion that evidence will be found, and it will therefore not be lawful for an arresting officer to search routinely or randomly simply on the off-chance that something may be found. I suspect that that may be the anxiety that is behind this amendment. Similarly, subsection (3) permits a search only to the extent necessary to find what is reasonably believed to be there. These do seem to us adequate safeguards which will ensure that this power will not be abused.
I acknowledge that the Royal Commission did not recommend the extension of the powers of search on arrest which the clause confers. Equally it did not recommend the extension proposed by the noble Lord himself. So if we are to extend these powers, I would
602
have thought that it would be more logical to extend them to evidence of any offence rather than the evidence of connected offences, given that there is a protection against what I think is commonly known as the "fishing expedition" for anything useful.
Lord Renton: It seems to me that if this amendment were accepted and a person had been arrested on a charge of burglary or theft and a police officer were making a search for that purpose, the police officer would he precluded from following up a suspicion which could easily arise that the person concerned might have some drugs on him. It would be very restrictive and quite unreasonable if, in those circumstances, the police officer was not also allowed to search for the drugs.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I doubt, with the greatest respect, whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does make a valid point there. His power to search for drugs—I believe I am right—would be contained in Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. If I am wrong on that matter I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will correct me, but I think there is a clear power to search for drugs and it is a very general power. In fact, I am rather sure that it is a power which the noble Lord, upon reflection, will remember because he and I were on a Committee on that Bill in another place.
Lord Renton: If the noble Lord will allow me, have we not to be careful that we do not create a conflict between two statutes, which we could be doing if we accepted the amendment?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My argument, with great respect, is that we are creating a conflict between two subsections. A person is arrested in a place other than a police station: let us imagine he is arrested in his own front room. Under Clause 31(2)(b) there is the power of search so far as the premises are concerned—and I quote the words—
"relating to the offence for which he has been arrested".
It is limited to that particular scope. But so far as the person of the suspect is concerned, as the wording of the clause now stands, there is no limit. Why should there be a limit in relation to the very house he is in when arrested—and it envisages that because it says:
"enter and search any premises in which he was when arrested"?
Why should there be a limitation upon searching the place but no such limitation in relation to searching the person? If the purpose of the limitation was, as I apprehend it was, to safeguard the privacy of the premises, then my argument is that it is infinitely more important to safeguard the privacy of the person of the individual himself. That, surely, must be sound and healthy logic. It is therefore in relation to their own logic and their own decisions that I ask the noble Lord the Minister to reconsider this matter. I appreciate that in the amendment, as I have drafted it, I have in fact out of my innate generosity widened the position somewhat and said:
"the offence for which he has been arrested or any offence closely connected therewith".
That, in my submission, goes only a bare inch beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission and

603
preserves the spirit of them; but, having drawn that distinction in relation to the premises, why should not the same distinction be held to operate in relation to the person of the suspect himself?
Lord Elton: If I can join in this, it is quite true that the part of the Bill the noble Lord referred to only permits the search of premises for evidence of an arrestable offence or arrestable offences connected with or similar to that offence. But that part of the clause deals with entry to premises whereas what we are talking about is the search of a person. Other innocent persons may be inside the premises—and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has already reminded us in Committee on this Bill—the Englishman's home is his castle and therefore rights of entry without permission should be very carefully circumscribed. That is why there is a distinction between the two requirements. If the noble Lord were to push the logic of our position to the extreme, I suppose the proper response to what I think is an agreed view—that it should be right for a policeman to be able to search somebody he has arrested for evidence of a different offence if he then has reason to suspect that he may have committed one, or been associated with it—would require that we should extend that power to the Englishman's home as well. That I would regret, and so I hope that your Lordships will be content to leave the Bill as it is.
Lord Denning: May I just say that when you are searching a person it is very different. You have to go round his clothes, through his pockets and so on. Suppose it is an offensive weapon you are looking for and you happen to find something which is obviously stolen when you go through his pockets; surely you ought to be able to search for that or to take it away. Searching a person is a different thing from searching premises. I would be against the amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I feel very chastened and would not seek to disagree with the noble and learned Lord. I hope that someone, someday—perhaps the noble and learned Lord himself—will coin an aphorism to the effect that the Englishman's body is at least as sacrosanct as his own house.
In so far as drugs are concerned, the position was as I suspected: it is governed by Section 23(2) of the Act of 1971 and therefore there would be no need to rely upon this power at all, because any person reasonably suspected of being in possession of a controlled drug could be searched by a constable in those circumstances.
I am disappointed. I hope and trust that the Minister will read what has been said in this very short debate and will reflect further upon it. But in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment 97D:
Page 26, line 9, at end insert—
("() The power to search conferred by subsection (2) above is not to be construed as authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves.")
The noble and learned Lord said: In the place of my noble friend Lord Gifford, I beg to move Amendment No. 97D, which does no more than confer the same protection as is conferred in Clause 2(9) in the case of the stop and search provisions of the Bill. In the interests of time, I do not think I need add any more to that submission.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is a slightly comic list, nonetheless, that the noble and learned Lord has produced, presumably in the interests of decency. If his jacket can he removed, why not his hat? Why not his boots? Gumboots or a scarf are very often used for storing articles such as drugs. It is a very, very arbitrary list even if there were anything in the principle, which I rather doubt.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may say, in the interests of brevity, that my noble friend clearly does not recall the difference between hats and jackets which we established, I think, on the second day of Committee. I will not bore him with that now, but I will just say that in principle we are agreed on this amendment, which is a corollary to Clause 2(9). I am sorry that I cannot elicit the enthusiasm for my noble friend that I always have to have for my pronouncements at this Box. We are obliged to the noble Lord, even in his absence, and will come forward with something at the next stage.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It only goes to show the inbuilt resistance the noble Lord has against any proposition of mine. I am sorry to say that about my old friend,Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It only shows how the noble and learned Lord's power of misjudgment has grown upon him with the years. He should know from long experience that I have a profound respect for his views. That is why I was so intrigued to know why he had forgotten his hat.
Lord Elton: Would the noble and learned Lord be so kind as to allow me to come forward with something very similar, but not exactly the same, at the next stage?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: On the strength of that specific, with-or-without-hat assurance, I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 97E:
Page 26, line 36, after ("privilege") insert ("or excluded material").
The noble Lord said: I think I am right in saying—and I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will assist me on this—that this is the debate on excluded material which we dealt with last time and, I think, divided on. That was on the basis of an amendment which dealt with the exclusion of welfare reports and similar documents. I think that having been defeated, very narrowly I believe, on that amendment, it would be much more sensible if I said, "Not moved".
Lord Plant Lord Plant moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 26, line 39, leave out ("any offence such as is mentioned in that paragraph") and insert ("an offence").
The noble Lord said: I am concerned about the effect of Clause 31(3). In my view, it very much reduces the powers of search upon arrest outlined in Clause 31(1), 31(2)(a) and 31(2)(b). Clause 31(1) has already been carried, as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and it retains the phrase "on reasonable grounds". Clause 31(3) puts the onus of decision on the constable and creates an impossible dilemma. He cannot carry out a search unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be searched may have concealed on him an article for which a search is permitted under that paragraph. If the officer does not suspect that such an article is being concealed, he may not even search.
However, if it transpires that the prisoner has managed after arrest to conceal or to get rid of incriminating evidence, the officer and the police force will be criticised, presumably because the officer stuck rigidly to the provisions of this Bill. He did not suspect, so he did not search. I draw attention to the comments about the arrest of the Yorkshire Ripper and the alleged concealment of incriminating evidence. In 1983, a young constable arrested a youth on a minor charge. He put the youth in the back of the police car without searching him. On the way to the police station, the prisoner stabbed the officer with a small knife that he was concealing and only the skill of the surgeon saved that young officer's life. He never suspected for a moment that the youth was concealing a weapon or would offer violence. If under this clause he had searched the suspect, even though he did not suspect concealment of any article empowering him to search, he would have been in breach of the clause. I am sure that your Lordships—
Lord Elton: I wonder whether the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, but I am getting a little confused. If he is speaking to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99—I think that No. 98 was called—then we dealt with this issue in a Government amendment which has been agreed to. If he is speaking to No. 97, we passed it on the Marshalled List. So I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is about.
Lord Plant: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99.
Lord Elton: I thought that the noble Lord supported us in amending the Bill in this sense with a Government amendment a moment ago.
Lord Plant: I was not aware that I supported the Government on this one. Otherwise it destroys my case. I had almost finished and I want to get this on the record, because it is a very important clause for the police. We have tied one hand behind their back and I do not think that we ought to tie two—
Lord Elton: I am so sorry, but will the noble Lord tell us whether he is speaking to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99, because I spoke to them and he agreed to them? They appear, misleadingly perhaps, under his name.
Lord Plant: Yes, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99.
Lord Elton: May I save the noble Lord some work, because this is what we want to achieve. It appears under the noble Lord's name, but I have spoken to it previously. We have agreed to the first leg of these amendments and, having spoken to them, I can merely say that I beg to move Amendment No. 98 and then say that I beg to move Amendment No. 99. We shall have it in the Bill and the noble Lord will be happy.
Lord Plant: I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 26, line 41, leave out ("any such") and insert ("an").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert—
("(iii) on police bail subject to a duty to attend at a police station; or")
The noble Lord said: May I be very brief about this amendment, which I hope speaks for itself. It deals with the provision which is subsection (9), which says:
"Anything seized…may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances; but retention of anything so seized is not to be taken to be necessary when the person from whom it was seized—
(a) is no longer—
(i) in police detention; or
(ii) in the custody of a court; or"—
and then this amendment would tidy it up by adding:
(iii) on police bail subject to a duty to attend at a police station; or"
I hope that the amendment is acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment has been prompted by the concern that we may have overlooked the need for the police to be able to retain for a forensic examination articles taken from a person on his arrest, who is then released on police bail. This concern may not be fully founded, because subsection (9) is concerned only with articles seized under subsections (7) and (8)(a); that is, articles which may be used to cause physical injury or to assist in an escape. They do not include articles needed for forensic examination. There will be articles seized and retained because they might be evidence. Such articles will be subject not to subsection (9) but to subsection (10), which applies Clauses 20 and 21 to these articles. Your Lordships will see that, in particular, Clause 21(2)(a)(ii) will permit their retention for forensic examination. I think that, at first glance, this part of the Bill looks as if there is a lacuna, but on closer examination there proves not to be. I am glad to have placed that assurance on the record.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful for that assurance. May I make absolutely sure under the magnifying glass that the lacuna no longer exists, and reflect upon the matter between now and the next stage? In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 27, line 10, at end insert—
("(11) Nothing in this section shall be taken to affect the power conferred by paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to embarrass or antagonise the noble Lord, Lord Plant, but I think that there has been a mistake in the printing of the Marshalled List. If he looks at an earlier edition, he will find that this amendment stood under my name. The inference of that must at least be a reassurance to him, because I am very much in favour of it. I have spoken to it already, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Limitations on police detention]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 100A:
Page 28, line 13, leave out ("at a police station").
The noble Lord said: I should be grateful if I might be allowed to deal with Amendment No. 100B as well.
Amendment No. 100B: Page 28, line 15, leave out ("at that station").
The same purpose is sought to be achieved by both amendments, and their purpose, in brief, is to ensure that where a constable arrests an individual and, under Clause 29(5), delays in taking him to a police station, the custody officer will still be generally responsible for that person. It was envisaged that the arresting officer would inform the custody officer that he had somebody in custody and was proceeding to, for example, the scene of the crime to further the investigation. If these amendments are carried, the custody officer would then have the duty of reviewing the grounds for detention. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): I believe that the noble Lord has put his finger on a good point here, although there may be some difficulty with the amendment as he has tabled it. If he will agree to withdraw it, I will undertake to have the matter looked at and, maybe, have a proper amendment brought forward at a later stage.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am extremely grateful, and, on those terms, I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 100B not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 101:
[Printed earlier: col. 568.]
The noble Lord said: this is one of the substantive amendments to which I spoke at the beginning of this afternoon with Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 102:
[Printed earlier: col. 568.]
The noble Lord said: The same remarks apply to this new clause. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I shall now call Amendment No. 103 as an amendment to Amendment No. 102. Lord Plant? Amendment No. 103 is not moved.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Amendment No. 102 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Custody officers at police stations]:
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
5.31 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 29, line 4, after ("is") insert ("or has been").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 106A. I shall do so very briefly. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure not only that the custody officer is an officer who is not currently involved in the investigation of a matter but that he has not been involved at an earlier stage. As the Committee can well imagine, it may be that at the commencement of inquiries Officer A is substantially involved in a certain aspect of the case and that some days later he drops out of it completely. The amendment would have the effect of saying that since Officer A has been so intimately connected with the case, he is not an appropriate officer to be a custody officer. I hope I am not being over rash in my optimism that this is wholly in line with the concept of the independence of the custody officer. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment is meant to ensure that the custody officer is entirely independent of the processes of investigation. I have some sympathy with the suggestion. It has been pointed out that the Royal Commission recommended in paragraph 3.112 that the custody officer should be independent of the investigations, but they also recognised that in some stations this will not be possible, for practical reasons. In the smaller stations there will simply not be sufficient manpower available to ensure that in every case the custody officer is and always has been independent of the investigation of the offence.
The noble Lord's amendment does not recognise this fact. If the sergeant who is acting as custody officer is called out to deal with an incident, there may be no practical alternative but that another officer takes over as custody officer, notwithstanding that he may have arrested somebody who is in custody at the station. However, the subsection, as drafted, makes it clear that whoever acts as custody officer must not be involved in investigative work at the time when he is fulfilling his custody officer functions under the Bill. This will ensure that the important principle of the separation of custodial and investigative responsibilities recommended by the Royal Commission is given effect to, to the maximum extent that is practicable. There is a balance to be struck

609
between the need for effective safeguards and the need for the responsible use of scarce resources, and I believe that the scheme adopted in the new clause I have proposed achieves that proper balance.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: This is not a matter upon which we on these Benches would be prepared to go to the stake. However, the noble Lord the Minister has been kind and gracious enough to accept that the principle which the amendment seeks to serve is laudable. I am sure that he in turn will accept that although there are situations where it would be impossible for an officer who had been earlier involved not to be a custody officer, if somebody is to perform that role, those situations would occur only in a very small minority of cases. I am wondering whether the Minister would be prepared, in the light of what has been said, to consider as a compromise that the spirit of the amendment should be accepted but that there should be a proviso that in those circumstances where it is wholly impracticable for the officer who has been earlier involved to be disbarred from being a custody officer, he should not be so disbarred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: I would ask your Lordships not to accept that Motion because of the alternative clauses which your Lordships have agreed to put into the Bill.
Clause 34 negatived.
Clause 35 [Duties of custody officer before charge]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 29, line 13, leave out ("the relevant police station") and insert ("each police station where he is detained after his arrest").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I rise to move Amendment No. 109. At the same time I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 111.
Amendment No. 111: Page 30, line 31, leave out from ("1980") to end of subsection (11).
These are purely drafting amendments which I hope will he welcomed as both simplifying and abbreviating the Bill. Clause 35 lays various duties on the custody officer at the relevant stations, the definition of this expression appearing in subsection (11). On reflection, we do not think that it is necessary to introduce into the Bill the new term of art, "relevant police station". All that needs to be said is that the duties in relation to an arrested person which are assigned to the custody officer by Clause 35 should be carried out by the custody officer at each police station when the arrested person is detained. It does not matter where the person was arrested or whether he is subsequently taken to more than one police station. The duties are the same in each case. I therefore beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 29, line 13, after ("shall") insert ("inform the said person of his right to remain silent in respect of any question put to him").
The noble Lord said: Equally briefly, I hope, but importantly, I beg to move Amendment No. 109A.
610
The clause we are dealing with now is an innovation so far as United Kingdom law is concerned, in that it introduces the possibility of questions being asked of an accused without incorporating the most valuable privilege that we have always had: the right of the accused to remain silent. All of us may have views about whether or not it is right to comment adversely at a trial on the fact that an accused has remained silent. There is no doubt about what the law says at the moment. It may very well be that Parliament in its wisdom will decide, either now or at some future stage, to alter that legal position. However, about one thing there is no doubt: the right to remain silent exists and the duty of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt still exists. It is not for the defendant, unless the statute casts that duty upon him, to prove his innocence.
In those circumstances, your Lordships may well think that the primary duty of the officer who is in charge of the detention, the custody officer, should be to inform the accused of his right in law to remain silent. That duty ought to be incorporated in the Act that we are about to pass, if it has the approval of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I ask the Minister whether it would be convenient for the Committee to take also Amendment No. 109C, Amendment No. 109B and Amendment No. 110, so that we could speak to all four amendments?
Amendment No. 109C: Page 29, line 23, leave out ("or to obtain such evidence by questioning him.").
Amendment No. 109B: Page 29, line 23, after ("to") insert ("seek to").
Amendment No. 110: Page 29, line 24, at end insert ("in the presence of a solicitor.").
I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 116 and 119, which go conveniently with Amendment No. 110.
Amendment No. 116: Page 36, line 42, at end insert ("in the presence of a solicitor;").
Amendment No. 119: Page 38, line 40, at end insert ("in the presence of a solicitor:").
It would seem that Amendments Nos. 109A, 109C, 110, 116 and 119 all deal with the question of the right to silence at the time of arrest. I suggest that, if convenient, it would be shorter to deal with those amendments together, rather than separately.
Lord Trefgarne: I must confess that I was not prepared to do that, but I agree that, it would be a good thing to try, at least. If the Committee will bear with me while I condense my six speeches into one, then I will do my best.
Lord Mishcon: Quite honestly, I wonder whether that is the logical way to proceed. I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, but would not the Minister have to hear the case for the various amendments before he deals with them?
Lord Trefgarne: Indeed.
Lord Mishcon: If the Committee approves of our dealing with all these amendments together, with everybody being so keen to get a move on and not

611
waste time, then I am perfectly happy to speak to Amendment No. 109B. It may be necessary to take separate votes on the amendments—I do not know—but I am absolutely happy with the idea of speaking to Amendment No. 109B, for which I have some responsibility. In respect of Amendment No. 109B I immediately make the point that if Parliament determines that this provision should be enacted, then there is surely a defect in the wording of line 23, part of which states:
"to obtain such evidence by questioning him".
That cannot be proper. The detention cannot be authorised to obtain evidence, but only to seek to obtain evidence by questioning a suspect.
The same kind of criticism applies, I think, in respect of Amendment No. 109C. The purpose of this amendment is to delete the power to obtain evidence by questioning a suspect. It covers the same point I made in reference to Amendment No. 109B.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: In supporting Amendments Nos. 109A and 109C, I will also say what I have to say in proposing Amendment No. 110. As has already been said, these amendments cover an absolutely crucial point in what happens when a person is taken to a police station. This is the vital moment. This is the moment when a person comes under arrest, the moment when he loses his liberty, the moment when he is in a police station alone, and the moment when he has nobody to speak for him and nobody to whom he can turn. He is in a strange environment and at a great disadvantage, of course. Therefore, it is a crucial moment.
The amendment which seeks to ensure that at that moment such a person is informed of his right to remain silent is doing no more than telling that person what is his fundamental right. As the Royal Commission insisted on a number of occasions, if there is a right and a person has a right, then it is crucial that he be told of it. With the greatest respect, that would seem to be so obvious that surely there can be no argument at all against ensuring that a person is told of his rights at that crucial moment.
The curious point about this Bill is that, although provision is made for ensuring that a person is told of the grounds for his detention, for ensuring that he is told that he may have a solicitor, and for ensuring that he is told that he may have a friend informed of where he is, there is no provision for him to be told of the far more crucial right to remain silent. I submit to the Committee that this is an omission from the Bill which should surely be put right.
I now come to the vital matter of the wording of Clause 35(2), which is covered in the next amendment. Amendment No. 109(c) seeks to omit the words,
"or to obtain such evidence by questioning him".
I would ask the Committee to consider this matter with great seriousness: The words which are in the Bill at the moment are these:
"If the custody officer determines that he does not have such evidence before him, the person arrested shall be released either on bail or without bail, unless the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that his detention without being charged is necessary"—
612
Then one or two reasons are given. Then comes the crucial one:
"to obtain such evidence by questioning him";.
That is, to obtain sufficient evidence to charge the person by questioning him.
The logic of the situation is that the custody officer has the arrested person in front of him, and therefore it is the duty of the custody officer to say to that person, "You need not say anything unless you wish to do so"; that is, to caution him. Two seconds later, the custody officer says to that same person, "I cannot release you on bail. I cannot charge you at the moment. But I am telling you that I am keeping you in this police station under detention because I consider it necessary to obtain evidence by questioning you."
If the arrested person says in reply, "But you have just told me that I am under no obligation to say anything, and I do not intend to say anything", then is not the inevitable logic of the situation that the grounds for keeping that person any longer in detention have gone? Surely there cannot be those grounds any more. The grounds in the Bill as drafted are,
"to obtain such evidence by questioning him".
If the person has been told that he need not be questioned, and if he says, "I don't intend to give any answers", then the custody officer has no grounds for keeping the person in detention under Clause 35(2).
I submit that this subsection is attempting to get around the right to silence. It is attempting to say, "Oh, yes, this person is in the police station, he is under arrest, and he does have to be cautioned under the code. But having cautioned him, we intend to keep him detained in order to obtain enough evidence by questioning him". I would suggest that that is a flagrant breach of the spirit of the right to silence. Indeed, it does not make any sense. Therefore, I would strongly support the amendment, which says in terms: leave out the words,
"or to obtain such evidence by questioning him".
As far as Amendment No. 110 is concerned, which is to insert the words "in the presence of a solicitor" after those words, if the submission that I have made to the Committee does not convince your Lordships then the words remain and the custody officer has this power to say to someone, "No, you shall be detained, you shall not be released, because I intend to obtain evidence by questioning you". This amendment then says that if there is to be that questioning it should only be done in the presence of a solicitor. If you are going to have a breach of the spirit of this fundamental right, the right of silence, then surely the right of the person to be legally advised of this extraordinary situation should be upheld.
I would say to your Lordships that, as noble Lords know, hours and hours of time are taken up in criminal trials with trying to establish in court what happened in the police station when the person was not represented by anybody and was in the hands of the police. On the one side, the defendant makes allegations against the police; on the other side, the police say that the defendant made observations, confessions, remarks—and the two things are fought up hill and down dale because there is nobody there who can in fact speak on behalf of the defendant. It is

613
the police on one side and the defendant on the other. Although it may appear that one is trying to say something which is for the accused person as against the police, that is not the true position because if the defendant has a solicitor present then all these allegations of impropriety, all these hours which are spent saying, "The police did this, the police did that", will go because the solicitor will have been present, he will have heard what was said, and he will be able to give evidence about it which will clearly indicate whether these things are being made up.
Therefore, I would submit that not only is this provision illogical, not only is it a great breach of the fundamental principle, but if it remains it should remain only so long as there is a solicitor present.
Lord Denning: This part of the Bill is probably the most important of all because it is introducing a new concept into our English law of police detention. Hitherto there has been no right whatever of the police to detain any person for questioning.
The point came up acutely in the Houghton case. The facts were these. Over £2½ million was stolen, I think from Heathrow. There was a reward of £125,000 offered for information leading to the arrest of the offenders. A man called Houghton, hoping to get that reward, got in touch with the police and gave information as to who were the culprits. The police saw him and suspected from what he told them that he was himself implicated, but they did not arrest him at that time. They made inquiries because of the statements which he had made. Then, on Saturday, 3rd July, as a result of what they had heard, they in fact detained him.
They detained him at the police station. They did not charge him; they detained him for questioning. The police officers could hold him and say that it was perfectly right and lawful for them to do that. They held him for nearly four days, from Saturday 3rd July to Tuesday the 6th, and just before the four days expired he made a statement amounting to a confession that he had himself been concerned in handling the goods. The police wanted all that time to complete their inquiries because there was still half a million pounds in bullion or notes outstanding.
In those circumstances, in the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Lawton made observations about the conduct of the police in this case. He said that the man ought to have been brought before the justices on the Monday after the Saturday, as he should have been. He might have been released on bail. The police suspected—and on the facts known to them they had good reason for doing so—that had he been released he would have tried to get possession of the half a million pounds or so—that was still missing. Further, there was a danger that if Houghton had been allowed visitors while at the police station he could have got them to collect the money for him and put it in a place where the police could not get it. A solicitor could have been an innocent channel of communication for this purpose.
It may be that the police should have powers to detain for inquiries in such a case. They have not got them now. Parliament may have to decide whether they should have them. The courts cannot do so. There is the important question for your Lordships
614
today: whether there should be power to detain for questioning in such circumstances. It is a very difficult question, if I may say so, but most important, because the efforts of the police may be hampered. I do not say that the man himself should necessarily be warned, or have a solicitor, and so on, but it is a most important question for the police in the course of their investigations, and I wonder which way we should come down.
It seems to me that in the search for, if I may say, the wrongdoers, in the search for discovering offences and offenders and bringing them to justice, the power to make inquiries of people who know the facts may be of the very first importance. Even though the man may be suspected, nevertheless if inquiries are properly and carefully made—remembering there is a custody officer who will be in charge and will investigate the matter—it seems to me that on the whole (and this is a most important point of principle for your Lordships) it would be right for the common law to be altered and for there to be a right to make inquiries by questioning a suspected person, such as the police do at the moment, but giving him all proper safeguards.
I do not say he should be warned and told that he has a right to silence, because a right to silence is a very misleading expression. A man has not a right to silence. What he has is a privilege against self-incrimination. He is not bound to incriminate himself, but he has not, in law, a right to silence as such. That is often misunderstood. He has a privilege against self-incrimination. The first thing an innocent man wants to do is to tell the truth and say that he is innocent. I am afraid it is often the guilty person who says, "I am not going to say anything". The right to silence has often been invoked when it is really not justified. As I said, it is only a privilege against self-incrimination.
I do not see why it should he in the presence of a solicitor. It is not going to be his solicitor. It may be a good thing or not, but is the solicitor to be present to monitor it, to see, or interrupt, the police and so on? That is another question. On the whole, if I may say so, it is a very near thing against the amendments and to support the Bill as it stands.
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord has been most helpful and brought us to a fairly wide passage in the Bill. I hope your Lordships will think that it is proper to deal with the amendments so far spoken to—the first three of the group spontaneously suggested earlier this afternoon. I respond to the noble and learned Lord by saying, first, that we recognise that the idea that it is lawful or proper for the police to detain a person whom they have arrested for an offence, in order to question him before he is brought before a court on a charge is a relatively recent development in criminal procedure. Until well into this century questioning was simply not part of the duties of the police at all. The courts repeatedly held that the police should not do the questioning. They held that that was a matter for themselves, and nobody else.
However, I think the noble and learned Lord will accept that the duties of the police have changed over the years and that the courts have shown themselves willing to interpret the law governing detention without charge in a way which reflects the

615
development of modern criminal investigation departments. The formal turning point came, I believe, in 1964 when the Judges' Rules were revised to allow the police to question an arrested person about the offence for which he had been arrested. Last year your Lordships' House confirmed, in the case of Mohammed-Holgate v. Duke, that detention for this purpose was permissible and it is, therefore, now an established and recognised fact that detention provides an opportunity for the police to convert the "reasonable suspicion" that suffices for an arrest into the "sufficient evidence" to justify the institution of proceedings.
In that respect the Bill does not introduce a new principle into the law, though it is a principle I readily accept your Lordships will wish to test. It places on a formal and statutory basis an interpretation of the powers and functions of the police which the courts have themselves adopted for the past 20 years. I do not think that we could reverse that. I do not think that, on reflection, your Lordships would wish to.
The case, therefore, is not that questioning produces confessions: though it is certainly true that many interviews result in confessions and that confessions are likely to he associated with pleas of guilty, which are welcome to the police for a variety of practical reasons. The justification for questioning under conditions of detention is, rather, that the police have a duty to check the suspect's story and investigate the facts which may either incriminate or clear him. I am very much aware of standing at this Dispatch Box and being tested about false admissions of guilt that have occurred in the past, as well as about people who have confessed correctly to crimes which they have committed. The suspect's story may be a denial of the alleged offence, or a confession to it, but in either case, therefore, corroboration must be sought. Often the confession marks the effective beginning of an investigation, rather than the end of it.
If the police were not given a reasonable opportunity to check the story of an arrested person, then charges would undoubtedly be preferred against very many people questioning of whom would have cleared them of suspicion. To release anyone on his own unverified story—which would be the only alternative—would not, I think, be considered by your Lordships as assisting us in controlling crime. That is why I think that the words,
"or to obtain such evidence by questioning him";
need to remain in the text of the Bill where they are.
I return to the wide theme to which the noble and learned Lord addressed himself; that is, to acknowledge the very serious nature of what is done to a suspect when he is detained in a police station. Your Lordships will be aware of, and will shortly be testing, the elaborate series of safeguards which have been built around that person for as long as he is not charged. I shall not go over them in detail, but we start with the constable exercising his judgment in arresting the suspect. He brings him to the station where the case is immediately put to a sergeant. Within six hours it goes to an inspector, and within another nine hours to a superintendent. After 36 hours it goes to the courts. All the codes of conduct that we have
616
discussed, time and again, relate to the treatment of the suspect while in detention.
I mention this as directly relevant not to the first of the group of amendments (Amendment No. 109A) but to the general anxiety which the noble and learned Lord properly seeks to leave in your Lordships' minds as you judge these amendments and come to a conclusion. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting that anxiety in your Lordships' minds because it is proper to do so, and although it makes my job more difficult, it makes the job of Parliament more efficient. I am grateful to him also for saying that in the light of that anxiety, he nonetheless feels that the Bill as drawn is correct.
Unless your Lordships wish me to do so, I think I need not speak directly to Amendments Nos. 109, 109A and 109B because they are taken care of in the general precepts which I have adduced. However, I shall speak to them if your Lordships so wish.
Lord Mishcon: When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, stands up and makes a speech on a matter of this kind there is no Member of your Lordships' Committee who would not wish to listen to every word he says and, in the course of listening, rather wonder at the ability of anybody to have such a memory that, without even looking down at a note, he can give the exact dates of a case and say that it was on a Saturday, on a Monday, and on a Tuesday. I am lost in admiration for the way that was done.
Having said that, one would also—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mishcon: I am not going to say what your Lordships think I am going to say. Having said that, one equally listens with rapt attention when the noble and learned Lord says that this is a very narrow point which one must look at extremely carefully. After a great deal of reflection, he finds that he just jumps down, or falls down, on one side. I see that the noble and learned Lord is good enough to indicate his assent to that analysis of his state of mind which was so frankly expressed to us.
If the noble and learned Lord has to concentrate so much upon this principle and comes down only narrowly on one side or the other, it would be very wrong of any of us not to take that as our guiding principle in coming to a decision on a very vital matter. Let us go three-quarters of the way down the road that the noble and learned Lord trod with such care and such elegance. Let us take it for granted that Parliament should now decide, as Lord Justice Lawton indicated would have to be its duty, that there should be a right of detention for interrogation. Let us go down that road that far. Is it right that we should go a further length in altering the law, as Parliament will be required to do, and, further than that, say that we do not even ask that the investigating officer or the custody officer should tell the man concerned what are his rights?
It is all very well taking the different classifications of the innocent and the guilty. The noble and learned Lord would be the first to agree with me, I am sure, that that is a generalisation which one should not take as being the literal guide to our consideration of this

617
particular matter. There are many innocent people who are very nervous when they arrive at a police station. There are a great number of innocent people who, out of sheer nervousness, answer in all the wrong ways the questions that they are asked. There are a great number of people, we have found in our experience as lawyers—and your Lordships as readers of newspapers will have found—who make the most extraordinary confessions, as they just feel that they want to get out of the police station and back home as fast as they can. It is not always the gentle policeman who asks the question in a perfectly courteous and simple way. Sometimes a question is put very directly; sometimes in the loneliness of that police station the question is put very aggressively.
What we have to secure at the least is that the person detained is told: "I am going to ask you some questions. It may be better for you to answer them, or it may not. But I am telling you of your right. You can tell me, if you want to, that you do not intend to answer them". That is his right.
Lord Elton: I hate to interrupt the noble Lord's oratory. When he is moved by the content of what he is saying he has a style, and he has a very good and impressive flow now. But I think I ought to remind your Lordships of this. The code of practice will be subject to parliamentary procedure and is tied into the Bill by disciplinary proceedings. That means that, if the custody officer or anybody else breaches the code, he will be subject to punishment. In Section 11 the code provides that an arrested person must be cautioned, at the very latest, at the point of arrest; that is to say, before he even comes to the custody officer, as is suggested in the amendment. That is earlier than the amendment proposes. In addition, he must be cautioned in full before being questioned or inteviewed on any occasion. He must be reminded that he is under caution if there is a break in the questioning: and if there is a substantial break, the caution must be repeated in full. The time and place at which cautions are given must be recorded in the custody record, and so on. I think that the safeguard which the noble Lord wants in this respect is stronger in the Bill than in the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord the Minister is kind to intervene if he thinks he is helping me or helping the Committee, but I do not honestly feel that he is. I say that first of all because we keep hearing about a code of practice. It is easily altered and will come before your Lordships' House from time to time by the procedure that we know of, if ever it is altered. Secondly, the noble Lord referred to a caution. What does the caution say? It says that you need not say anything, but anything you do say may be taken down and given in evidence. That is all very well. Those are words which are expressed from time to time. They are not very clear in their meaning. They certainly are not as simple as somebody being told in ordinary language, "You need not say anything if you don't want to".
I feel that we are doing something extremely wrong when we reflect upon changing our law, as the noble and learned Lord just felt that we ought to—and I repeat the words, "just felt—without in the same
618
legislation (not in any code of practice but in the legislation itself) writing into the change of law the safeguard to which the individual is entitled; namely, a clear statement of what his legal rights are.
It is all very well to talk of the guilty person being the one who does not want to speak. It is not always—and I repeat that statement—it is not always the person who is guilty who needs that warning. The person who is guilty is most likely, in the examples that we have been giving, to be the sort of rogue who will know what his rights are in any event, has most likely been up against the criminal law before and has had all the advice that his lawyers may have seen fit to give him. That is not the person about whom I am frightened in regard to this warning. He will know his rights. I am frightened about the nervous person who ought not to be subjected to that without a clear indication of what his legal rights are.
I conclude by using the noble and learned Lord as the basis of my plea to the Committee. The Committee does not have an assured Lord Denning, as it has often had. I have heard his words addressed to amendments of mine: "I ask your Lordships not to agree with the noble Lord's amendment". There have been a few terse sentences after that, and the noble and learned Lord has sat down because he has been very certain of himself. But the noble and learned Lord says in regard to this amendment, "I have had to give it every consideration. It is a very narrow point. I think I am right in coming down on one side, but it is a very narrow point". If we go with the noble and learned Lord on a point which is so narrow, at least let us see that the safeguard which he knows ought to exist is in the Bill.
Lord Hooson: I should like the guidance of the Committee on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not deal with Amendment No. 110 in his reply, and I should like to speak to that.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether it would be better to speak to Amendment 110 later. We have quite a lot on board already. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has returned to an issue to which we spoke briefly on a previous amendment, but which was not fully raised hitherto, and that is the relative importance of the code of practice and the Bill. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood him to be saying that here is a right so important that it should not be left in the code of practice; it ought to be put on the face of the Bill.
Both at Second Reading and throughout our Committe proceedings noble Lords have—perhaps inadvertently—belittled the codes of practice for which Clause 63 provides. I repeat this fortissimo, having said it whatever there is between fortissimo and piano on the musical scale (I have forgotten) at the earlier stage. I believe that noble Lords misdirect themselves in that. What underlies their approach is the belief that the inclusion of a provision in the statute rather than the code enhances its status and the likelihood of its observance. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said as much on Second Reading. He said:
"the point that I was making was that it was in the code but not in the Bill, and that what is in the code will he disregarded".

619
Those were his words at col. 474 on 4th June.
I do not want to spend too much time arguing about status symbols, but I cannot allow the impression to remain unchallenged that the code provides a lesser degree of authority and one that can be treated in an slipshod way. Police officers will disregard the requirements of the code at their peril. Clause 64(7)—
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister in his courtesy will give way if we are to have a logical debate, and I am sure that he will try to change his tune to one of moderato if I implore him to do so. It is no consolation whatsoever to any accused that a disciplinary charge may be brought against an officer in due course, arising out of fact that the officer has acted incorrectly and in breach of the code. If, however, it is in an Act of Parliament that something has to be done, and if it is not done then certain consequences follow, that is something that protects the accused. I repeat that it is no consolation at all that an officer has had a stripe removed, or whatever it may be, after all the damage has been done.
Lord Elton: I acknowledge the force with which the noble Lord has spoken but not so much the force of what he has said. The way in which constables, sergeants and the ranks above behave is determined by the orders under which they work and the regulations by which they are bound to abide. We are looking at a code of conduct enforced by the chief officer of police through all the subordinate ranks down to the custody officer and the police constable. The effect of that code of conduct is to require the suspect to be given the caution at an earlier stage than is suggested. There is not much more that I can say on that matter.
The choice between the Bill and codes is essentially a matter of judgment. We take—and I would remind the Committee that the Royal Commission took—one view and the noble Lord opposite takes another. However, I should like to urge one point. This only arises because this has been made an issue. In itself, the question of the Bill versus the code is not so important but if the Committee agree to these amendments you will in effect be telling the police service that certain provisions are so important they are not to be trusted to the code. It seems to me that these amendments really come, therefore, to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lord Airedale: Has the noble Minister not thought of it in this way? Learned counsel for the defence is addressing the jury and says, "This police officer has breached the code of conduct". That will make some impression upon the jury. However, if he says, "This police officer is in breach of an Act of Parliament", that will make a different impression and a more serious impression upon the minds of the jury.
Lord Elton: We must not go on on this, for too long. On that I would merely say that the noble Lord will remember that the code of conduct will have the authority of Parliament because it will be published under parliamentary authority and subject to parliamentary reversal. It is not called an Act but it is the will of Parliament.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Before my noble friend replies to this, I should like to take up something which has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He pointed out that the right of silence means the privilege against self-incrimination. That is precisely what I had urged upon the Committee earlier: that if you say to a person in custody, "It is necessary to keep you in detention to obtain by questioning such evidence as is sufficient to charge you", that is trying to breach that person's privilege against self-incrimination. That is precisely what these words do.
I know that in a moment the Committee will have to decide two separate things. First of all, they will have to decide whether that person is to be told, in terms, of his right to silence or his privilege against self-incrimination. That is the first matter. The second matter is whether these words should remain in Clause 35(2) of the Bill:
"to obtain such evidence by questioning him"—
just after the custody officer has told him of his rights and his privilege against self-incrimination.
With the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I would say this in reply to his observation—and has one not heard it enough throughout the years of listening to judges in criminal courts?—that the innocent person will wish to speak at once. What on earth relevance has the fact that an innocent person may wish to speak at once to the question of whether you tell a person of his right?
May I take, for example, one criminal offence on the roads with which anybody in this Chamber is liable to be charged at any moment. You knock somebody down in your motor-car and kill him. The suggestion is that you were driving recklessly and you are possibly going to be charged and very possibly put in prison. I would suggest that every single noble Lord in this Chamber, when approached by the police for an account of what happened, would say, "I want time, please, to think this through. I would like to have legal advice as to my position. When I have had time and I have had legal advice I will give a complete statement of my position, which was that I was driving perfectly properly and I was not in any way criminally or negligently responsible for this accident. But I am not going to embark on that statement now, by myself, in a police station, without time and advice".
If that is the view of the Committee here, why on earth should it not be the privilege of the person who is charged with other criminal offences? In some people's views, to kill someone with a motor-car happens to be a "respectable" criminal offence. It is an appalling criminal offence. One has heard over and over again this phrase, "why should there be a right to silence?—because every innocent person will immediately explain his innocence and will want to talk". That is not an attack on the behaviour of the police or the behaviour of the accused, but an attack on the privilege of the right to silence. That is what the attack is on.
However, if I may say so that is not in issue in this vital question which we are deciding. What is in issue is that that right has been accepted and endorsed by the Royal Commission, accepted and endorsed by the Government throughout the passage of this Bill in

621
another place. It is not in issue. If you are entitled not to say anything, whether you be innocent or guilty, then you should surely be allowed not to say anything and be told of your rights. I am sorry for taking up extra time. In reply to the Minister, on this question of the fact that it is already in the code and so it need not be in the Bill, at paragraph 4.116 the Royal Commission said this about this matter:
"We have already recommended that the rules that affect the liberty of the citizen or the invasion of his privacy, that is those on arrest and detention …should be incorporated in primary legislation".
Then a few lines later their Report says:
"The rules which will regulate the facilities to be provided for and the treatment to be accorded to suspects in custody and the code of practice which will govern the conduct and recording of interviews should he contained in subordinate legislation".
I would suggest that that is the fundamental difference between these matters. These crucial matters of the citizens rights should be in primary legislation. All the rules and regulations as to how you treat someone in custody, in what cells you keep them, how their statement should be taken, giving them food and drink, informing their friends and so on and so forth—of course, those matters should go in a code. The crucial, critical matters of principle—and there is no greater principle than this one in the whole of this Bill—as the Royal Commission say, should surely be in primary legislation.
Lord Elton: I cannot leave so many points unanswered, hut I will try to be brief. The noble Lord quotes from the Royal Commission. I quote from them also.
"The rules which will regulate the facilities to be provided for and the treatment to be accorded to suspects in custody and the code of practice which will govern the conduct and recording of interviews should be contained in subordinate legislation. This should be made by the Home Secretary, with cunsultation as appropriate, and subject to the approval of Parliament by affirmative resolution, which will give flexibility to amend aspects of detail if experience or changing circumstances require it".
That is exactly the process that we have been going through with the codes of practice. They have been amended in consultation following debate in another place and they will be implemented eventually by a parliamentary procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, says that those who wish to speak should be able to do so and the police should be able to take evidence. It is clear therefore that the power to do so should remain on the face of the Bill and should not be removed from it. There is no difference between us as to what ought to happen. All that we are bickering about is the machinery by which it should be brought about.
The difference between us is whether or not it should repose within the code of conduct or be put on the face of the Bill. I believe that experience will show that there are aspects of this which we shall not have got right at the first instance, and that your Lordships will wish the Home Secretary at a future date to come back to Parliament with alterations to the code of practice. He will then not be waiting like a Canadian lumberjack at the head of the river with a great log jam ahead of him, waiting for parliamentary time, because it can be done in the simple procedure appropriate to subordinate legislation. I believe that the safeguards in the Bill are better than those proposed.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Foot: I intervene briefly because I should like to say a word or two before the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concludes the debate. There is one matter which will probably be agreed in all parts of the Committee. It is, as my noble friends have said and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, that this is the crucial part of the Bill. The question of the right to silence is a crucial part of the crucial part. I was a little disturbed to hear the noble Lord the Minister talk about this debate as bickering. That is a very odd phrase to apply to the discussion of what has always been regarded as one of the basic rights of the individual.
Lord Elton; With respect, I always regret it when I choose a word that gives the wrong impression. I said "bickering" because what we are talking about is the relatively unimportant aspect of how what we all want to achieve should be achieved. We would be arguing furiously if the rights of the individual were in doubt.
Lord Foot: I shall not be particularly troubled about particular words that the noble Lord used. I should like, however, to say something about what was stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He reminded us that it has been considered by Lord Justice Lawton that the time may have come when we should introduce into the law of this land the right of interrogation of the suspect when in custody and when in detention. I should like to say a word or two—again, I am doing this at the risk of repeating myself—about what was done in Scotland in 1980. This is an interesting aspect of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was talking about. It is true that the Scottish Bill went some way down what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has called the road that the noble and learned Lord has spoken about. The Scottish Bill set out what was to happen to a person on being detained in a police station. It stated:
"Where a person is detained under subsection (1) above, a constable may put questions to him in relation to the suspected offence".
So the Scottish legislators did decide to go some way down the road towards interrogation of a suspect in detention. But they went on to do something else. A little further down in the same section they provided that:
"A person detained under subsection (1) above"
that is a person detained in a police station as a suspect
"shall be under no obligation to answer any question other than to give his name and address, and a constable shall so inform him both on so detaining him and on arrival at the police station or other premises".
That was the safeguard that the Scottish legislators thought was absolutely essential if we were to go any way down the noble and learned Lord's road. Not only that. If one looks back in the same section to the things that the police are obliged to do, one finds this:
"At the time when a constable detains a person under subsection (1) above,"
and it then states the various things that he must do and the various things that he must record. One of the things that he must record is,
"the time when the person is informed of his rights in terms of subsection (7) below."

623
That is the subsection which I have quoted which says that he must be informed that he is under no obligation to do anything other than to give his name and address.
Of these amendments that we are discussing or are about to discuss, I would, on balance, be mainly in favour of the amendment which we are currently discussing. The real solution is that it should be written into statute at a very early stage that, before anything else is done by way of interrogation or asking questions, the suspect shall be informed precisely of his absolute rights. It would be deplorable to my mind if we were, in the course of passing a Bill of this kind, to provide any lesser protection for the rights of the subject than now exists in Scotland. There is a strong argument on a matter of this vital importance in trying to bring the Scottish and the English law into agreement.
We are making at this stage of this long Committee debate one of the most important decisions that we shall he asked to make throughout the Bill. I hope that we shall bear in mind what we have been talking about almost from the beginning—that this Bill very rightly seeks to set out and codify what shall be the powers of the police in the very difficult job that they have of trying to maintain the law and enforce the law; but, equally, as the noble and learned Lord. Lord Scarman, said on Second Reading, we are concerned to ensure that proper safeguards are provided to protect the individual against any abuse of the powers we give to the police. It is that issue that we are discussing here. In my belief and my submission, the balance between the one and the other is rightly drawn in the terms of this amendment.
Lord Elton: I should like to make it clear that I do not intend to make a whole series of further speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has given an able and persuasive speech about Amendment No. 87, which was not moved. Your Lordships will therefore forgive me if I do not reply to that. Everything that I have already said has been relevant.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: We are on an important point—I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about that—but it is a narrow one. It is the point as to whether the provision of warning as to the right of silence, which it is generally agreed should be given, should be embodied in the code of practice or in the statute. That is the point, as I understand it, that your Lordships have been discussing for some time now. It would help me in making up my mind if we could follow the procedure that my noble friend Lord Elton will remember we followed somewhat unconventionally on an earlier amendment where a similar point arose, though on a less important issue. On that occasion, as my noble friend will remember, I raised the question, genuinely seeking information, as to whether, if the provision in respect of making a list of property found on an accused, were embodied only in the code of practice and not in the statute, it would make any legal difference to subsequent proceedings.
624
That matter was resolved, I think with the agreement of all of us, by reference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who speaks with such vast authority on these matters. I wonder whether we could apply a similar principle and ask for the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on this point. If the warning is embodied in the code of practice, as my noble friend Lord Elton wants to see it, if there is a breach of it, and this comes out at the hearing of the case, would that be as sufficient a ground for upsetting the decision in the case as would be a breach of a similar provision incorporated in the statute?
Lord Elton: With great presumption, may I put into the noble and learned Lord's mind the provisions of Clause 64(7), which states:
"A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a code of practice issued under this Act shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings but in all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence, and if any provision of such a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question."
In case the noble and learned Lord had not seen that, I thought he should know about it before he answered.
Lord Denning: I think that is the answer.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I am sure he has heard of the Confait case, in which there were convicted of murder and arson a number of young people who supposedly had made confessions. Sir Harry Fisher was asked to carry out an inquiry into that. He found that some of the provisions in the Judges' Rules, which, in fact, were the equivalent of the code which is now attached to this Bill, only, of course, in a different form—hitherto the Judges' Rules have been the code that everyone has had to follow—were not known to the police. One of them was not known to the lawyers in the case.
He found that it was because of that lack of knowledge that this appalling miscarriage of justice had taken place. As your Lordships may know, he has made a recommendation that if, in future, any defendant is not told of his right to have a solicitor, then any confession which follows will automatically be excluded. That was the supreme example of the difference between something that is in a statute and something that is only in a code, which then was the Judges' Rules.
Lord Elton: The supreme irony of the position is that it is because of the Confait case that we are all standing here debating this question. The code of conduct was designed to meet these conditions. The provisions of the Bill meet them specifically. I feel that probably we have heard enough on this to be able to come to a conclusion.
Lord Mishcon: I am taking the hint, and I shall be extremely brief. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, put a very pertinent question, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in giving a brief answer, may decide that he wishes to elaborate

625
upon it; I do not know. But the answer that I am venturing to give—I know that the noble and learned Lord will correct me if he thinks that I am wrong—is that there is a great deal of difference between a code of practice, even if one looks at Clause 64(7), and an enactment in a statute.
The code of practice under Clause 64(7) is in precisely the same position as a highway code; it has as little, or as much, effect as that. One cannot charge anybody with a breach of the code of practice—there is no criminal offence—but it can be referred to in the course of the proceedings; that is all. But if it is a breach of an Act of Parliament—if one starts off with an illegality under an Act of Parliament—all that flows from it is most likely illegal.
Therefore, the answer from this Dispatch Box to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—it is a very much more humble answer than the one that comes from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, or from the Cross-Benches, on a matter of this kind—is, in all humility, "The world of a difference". That is why, on such a crucial issue, if the Committee is agreed, as the noble Lord the Minister says is the case, of course there ought to be a warning, and the only difference is: should it be code of practice, or should it be the law enacted in statute?
I am going to utter one sentence, and one sentence only. The noble Lord the Minister let the cat out of the bag. He quoted from the commission's report (he thought in his favour), by talking about subordinate legislation, and then saying that it had the desirability of flexibility. How right he was! It is flexible; it can be altered just when one wants, with Parliament approving. The one thing that I want to be inflexible is the right, imprinted in our law, to silence and the right for somebody to be told that before he is questioned by the police. To me, that is inflexible, and therefore I ask the Committee to decide which course it wants to adopt.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 109A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Foot, L.

Attlee, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Birk, B.

Grimond, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bottomley, L.

Hampton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hooson, L.

Collison, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

David, B.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Denington, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

626

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Serota, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shackleton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shannon, E.

McNair, L.

Simon, V.

Mayhew, L.

Somers, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stallard, L.

Meston, L.

Stamp, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stedman, B.

Minto, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Monson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris, L.

Stone, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peart, L.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Allerton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Alport, L.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Bauer, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belper, L.

Mar, C.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molson, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Northchurch, B.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cox, B.

Pender, L.

Craigavon, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Daventry, V.

Plant, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denning, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Reay, L.

Donegall, M.

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glanusk, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swansea, L.

Gormanston, V.

Swinfen, L.

Gowrie, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Greenway, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vickers, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vivian, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wise, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wynford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.54 p.m.
[Amendment No. 109C not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 109B:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 109B is really an improvement by way of wording but with a definite principle behind it. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister would indicate his views on that and I can then take a certain course.
Lord Elton: I should like to put on the record the options that we have about this amendment. The introduction into Clause 35 of the words "seek to" does appear to be unnecessary and possibly to reflect a misunderstanding of the syntax of the provision which is already teleological in form. The purpose of detaining someone is to obtain evidence, not simply to seek to obtain it, in precisely the same way as the purpose of raising one's arm in class is to catch the teacher's eye, not to seek to do so. The teacher can of course decline to interrupt the lesson but it would be syntactically very odd to say that it is necessary to raise one's arm in order to seek to catch his eye. Indeed the enterprise would be pointless if one knew that failure was certain. The subsection as drafted has the virtue of carrying the clear implication that the legal justification for continuing detention—and this is where I come to a matter of interest—for the purposes of questioning is related to the probability that he will co-operate to the extent of answering.
Far from the right to silence being undermined by these provisions, this leg of the subsection ensures that continued detention for questioning is not justified when there is plainly no intention on the part of the suspected persons of providing the evidence sought. That would indeed be to run the risk of suspects being worn down by repeated questioning which is at the heart of the concern over the right to silence. Our fear is that if the test were merely that detention was necessary to seek to obtain rather than necessary to obtain, we should be approaching the situation which the noble Lords opposite quite rightly fear. I hope that I have judged my reply to an agreeable length for the purposes of the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Alport): The situation is slightly irregular. I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was actually moving that amendment. As he has done so, perhaps I should put the procedure right by saying:
Amendment proposed, page 29, line 23, after "to" insert "seek to".
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would accept it from me that the word "obtain" as against the words "seek to obtain" obviously predetermines a result. If he thinks that I am incorrect in my use of language, let me tell him that I am in good company since this, after a lot of consideration, is a recommendation of the Law Society by way of amendment. I think that having told the noble Lord that, he would wish to take it with some seriousness and give consideration to it. If the noble Lord will do that, then I am perfectly happy to withdraw.
Lord Elton: I am happy to undertake to do that.
Lord Mishcon: And I am happy in those circumstances to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think that we have probably reached the appropriate moment where we should have the temporary adjournment of this stage. In moving that the House do now resume, I think that it would be helpful to your Lordships to know that we shall not resume this Bill before 7.45 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
6.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to (Bill 119) as first printed for the Commons].
1 After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of restriction on powers as to infected places. 1981 c. 22.
. Section 17(4) of the Animal Health Act 1981 (power to declare defined part of port or aerodrome an infected place restricted to the Ministers) shall cease to have effect.").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I should also like to speak at this stage to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13 Schedule 2, page 19, line 45, at end insert—
("1981 c. 22. | Animal Health Act 1981. | Section 17(4).").
14 In the Title, line 3, leave out ("and").
15 Line 4, after ("and") insert ("declarations as to places infected with a disease and").
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am rather at a loss to find where the Commons passed Amendment No. 1. I have looked through both the Committee stage and the Report stage and I cannot see Amendment No. 1. It may be due to my lack of knowledge of procedure, but I cannot find Amendment No. 1 passed by the Commons anywhere.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, means that he does not know whether it was passed in Committee or on Report or what is the appropriate column number.
Lord John-Mackie: Yes.
Lord Belstead: I am very sorry but I do not have that information with me. If the noble Lord would give me a moment or two I think it is possible that a little advice will come to me and I will be able to tell the noble Lord whether Amendment No. 1 was passed in another place in Committee or on Report. Perhaps the noble Lord will bear with me for a moment while I explain why I now move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I hope that at the end of my remarks I can then answer the noble Lord's question.
This amendment and the related amendments refer to new Clause 4 which provides that subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Animal Health Act 1981 shall cease to have effect. The repeal is effected by a reference in Schedule 2 and in the Title. These changes—which, to answer the noble Lord, I am advised were put into the Bill in another place in Standing Committee B on 12th June at column 15—are designed simply to streamline the means by which certain animal health control measures are taken. The subsection originates in ancient legislation going back as far as 1894 and the procedure imposed by the subsection has been cumbersome and could impede the taking of necessary measures quickly to prevent the spread of disease.
Perhaps I may give a topical example. As the House may very well know, all the outbreaks of Newcastle disease in poultry, which this country has been suffering for some months—except for one outbreak, for which investigations are complete—have been linked to raw materials in certain stores at the port of Liverpool. At the present time, as the law stands notices restricting the movement of such material from those stores require the signature of an authorised person from each of the agricultural departments of the United Kingdom. The repeal which I am now suggesting to your Lordships will simplify and speed up the department's ability to take any necessary action by making it possible for the notice to bear only one signature, normally that of a Ministry veterinary officer. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think we would all agree that this is a very necessary amendment because of that unfortunate incident when Newcastle disease was linked to a feeding stuffs place in Liverpool, and we thoroughly agree with the noble Lord in what he says. I am sorry to say that I still cannot find where the Commons passed this amendment at column 15. I have the Hansard here, but I shall take it for granted that it is there somewhere. Perhaps I am going blind in my old age.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 5, page 3, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("provision") in line 9 on page 4 and insert ("For section 3 of that Act (regulations for securing humane conditions of slaughter) there is substituted—

"Regulations for securing humane conditions of slaughter

3.—(1) The Ministers may make regulations for the purpose of securing humane conditions and practices in connection with the slaughter of birds to which this Act applies.

(2) The regulations may—

(a) specify conditions to be observed in connection with the confinement and treatment of any such
630
birds while awaiting slaughter and in connection with the slaughter of any such birds;

(b) prohibit the slaughter of any such birds or any activity connected with their slaughter—

(i) on premises to which the regulations apply, or

(ii) by methods or in circumstances of any description specified in the regulations,

except under and in accordance with the terms of licence under the regulations;

(c) require occupiers of premises to which the regulations apply to secure that the provisions of the regulations are complied with on the premises;

(d) make different provision for different cases;

(e) provide, in the case of any contravention of any provision of the regulations, for the creation of offences and their punishment on summary conviction with a fine of an amount not exceeding that specified in the regulations.

(3) The regulations may include.".")
3 Page 4, leave out lines 20 to 25 and insert—
("(4) The amount that may be specified under subsection (2)(e) of this section is an amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section are without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section.
(6) The Ministers shall, before making any regulations under this section, consult with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of the interests concerned.
(7) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. If I may, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Schedule 1, page 17, leave out lines 24 to 30.
11 Page 17, leave out lines 45 to 47.
12 Schedule 2, page 19, line 23, leave out ("3(1)").
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are designed to replace Section 3 of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 by which Ministers are enabled to make regulations for the purpose of securing humane conditions and practices in connection with the slaughter of poultry and the treatment of poultry awaiting slaughter. The new power may look very different from the existing one—and by that I mean the one which was in the Bill when it left your Lordships' House—but the purpose of the Commons amendment is to clarify doubts over the extent of the powers, particularly as they apply to places where poultry are sold live to the intending consumer, who then slaughters the bird himself before taking it home. Slaughter in these circumstances may not readily he interpreted to fall within the definition of "slaughter for commercial purposes", since it could he argued that the commercial transaction has been completed before slaughter takes place. These amendments therefore give Ministers power to make regulations which apply to slaughter in any circumstances. Therefore, these amendments have tightened up the rules.
I should like to make it quite clear that we do not intend to use this power to apply controls over people killing poultry in their own homes for their own or their families' consumption, and I give an assurance that we shall make this clear in the regulations. Nor do the Government intend to apply controls to slaughter in the circumstances which are excluded under Clause

631
4; that is slaughter by veterinary surgeons, slaughter for an experiment under the Cruelty to Animals Act, and for disease control purposes. Again, the regulations will make this clear. Our intention is simply to control the conditions under which slaughter for commercial purposes or slaughter on premises where birds are sold or under the control of the person selling the birds, can take place. The new section leaves untouched the licensing provisions in Clause 5 of the Bill as printed.
There is one other point that I should like to add, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, when the Bill went through the House. Subsection (2)(b) and (d) will enable us to make exceptions in appropriate cases from any of the provisions in the regulations. I hope that this will be an assurance to the noble Lord, who sought special provision to be made in respect of slaughter for sale at the farm gate. The Government will give careful consideration to any requests for special treatment when the time comes to make the regulations, though I must emphasise again that our first concern must be for the birds' welfare. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining this amendment. It is a very necessary one because there is always a great deal of worry over the wholesale slaughter of poultry in the large slaughter houses. I note in the Commons debate on the amendments that that worry was raised. There is no doubt that automatic stunning can miss birds here and there and that inspection is sometimes a little lax. I am sure that tightening up will help to relieve people's minds of that worry and reassure them that the welfare of the birds is looked after. I am glad that this will not affect various items, including the one I mentioned when we discussed this matter at the Report stage, of farm slaughtering for the farmer's wife's own use or of a few birds for sale. With that, we support the amendment.
I have just noticed where I made my mistake or someone has made a mistake. The amendment says, "After Clause 3" but elsewhere it says, "new Clause 2" It is little wonder that I was mixed up in the amendments.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I believe that the new version is an improvement on the previous one. However, I note that we are now legislating very much in arrears. The Report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, upon which this Bill is based, was issued in 1982 and I hear that very rapid changes are taking place in the handling of birds in this particular industry, that mass production is being accompanied by mass slaughter and that the mechanisation of some operations in the handling of birds has advanced a considerable stage since the Farm Animal Welfare Council conducted its own investigations several years ago. Therefore, the power to make regulations here is not only comprehensive, but it gives the Minister an opportunity to make sure that what he is doing is up to date.
I believe that that is very important. If one is not pretty speedy in implementing recommendations of
632
this kind, one can be left behind. This is a lesson to be learnt in connection with the more recent report on the slaughter conditions of red meat animals. However, on this particular clause I approve of the range of matters which may be the subject of regulations. My final observation is that we are building up a considerable promissory note on regulations and codes of practice. There is much work still to be done. Indeed, it must be done before the Act is really effective. That is the long and short of the matter. I hope that the department are busy preparing the regulations and also the codes of practice, otherwise there will be another gap between the authority given to the Minister and his use of it.
I remark on the Minister's repetition of the phrase, "The interests of the birds must come first". I entirely agree with that, but the interests of the birds have to come first as early as possible, otherwise there is a good deal of suffering likely to go on while fresh regulations and codes of practice are being prepared and introduced.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think I ought to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who has taken a close interest in this Bill. When the noble Lord talks about legislating in arrears and having to keep up, I think it is right for me to say that perhaps that is not wholly fair. The power to regulate in slaughter houses is in the 1967 Act and was used in 1971 when the regulations on the slaughter of poultry under humane conditions were made. We are now in the process of amending those regulations. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that the Ministry is keeping up with the needs of the time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 7, page 5, line 43, at end insert ("to which regulations under section 3 of this Act apply").
5 Page 6, line 8, leave out ("for commercial purposes").
6 Page 6, line 14, leave out ("for commercial purposes").
7 Page 6, line 18, leave out ("for commercial purposes").
7.12 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7. These amendments are to ensure that the powers of entry for authorised local authority or Ministry officials in Clause 7 will be available in those premises where slaughter is controlled under regulations made under Section 3 of the 1967 Act. As I explained in introducing the Government's last group of amendments, it was necessary to draft the powers more widely so that we might be sure that all slaughter in commercial premises or for commercial purposes fell within the scope of the Bill. It was particularly necessary to make clear that any slaughter after sale, whether by the seller or his employee, the purchaser or any other person, was covered.
I believe that these amendments ensure that the powers of entry are now available to all premises where this kind of slaughter takes place—and rightly so. However I assure your Lordships that when we come to make regulations under Section 3 we intend to exclude from their scope slaughter by individuals at home for consumption by themselves and their

633
families. Power of entry will not therefore be available in those circumstances.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(Lord Belstead).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of 1967 Act.
. For section 6 of that Act (power to proceedings) there is substituted—

"Execution and enforcement.

6.—(1) Every local authority shall execute and enforce in their area the provisions of this Act and of regulations under section 3 of this Act.

(2) In particular, every local authority shall, for the purpose of securing the execution of those provisions, make arrangements for the supervision by persons having such qualifications as may be specified in the regulations of any premises in their area to which the regulations apply.
(3) Arrangements under subsection (2) of this section shall comply with such directions as the Ministers may give from time to time.
(4) This section does not authorise a local authority in Scotland to institute proceedings for any offence.".").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This new clause fulfils an earlier undertaking which I gave on behalf of the Government that we would introduce an amendment to this Bill in response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendation that the local authority official veterinary surgeon should be made responsible for welfare in slaughterhouses.
The way in which this new clause works falls into two main parts. First, it replaces the power in Section 6 of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 for local authorities to institute legal proceedings for contraventions of the Act itself or of regulations made under it with a duty on local authorities to execute and enforce the legislation. Secondly, Amendment No. 8 requires local authorities to arrange for the supervision of slaughter premises by officers holding qualifications approved by Ministers and to comply with directions given to them by Ministers concerning the arrangements for supervision.
We intend to use these powers to require local authorities to make the official veterinary surgeon responsible for welfare in all licensed slaughterhouses. However there are a great many small unlicensed slaughterhouses where the law does not require official veterinary surgeon supervision: local authorities are generally responsible for public health and hygiene in these places and we intend therefore to enable them to use the appropriately qualified staff—for instance, environmental health officers and poultry meat inspectors—to supervise both health and welfare in those slaughterhouses. Indeed, these officers may be asked to cover welfare in licensed premises also, in addition to the official veterinary surgeon. We will be consulting carefully to ensure that the officers we approve are appropriately qualified to supervise
634
welfare, and that local authorities are not faced with unreasonable new commitments.
It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that we are taking powers to give directions to local authorities on their arrangement for supervision. I have already said that we shall be directing them to give responsibility to the official veterinary surgeon in licensed slaughterhouses; we will also he able to give directions as to the checks to be undertaken by the responsible officials and as to periodic veterinary inspection of premises not supervised by an official veterinary surgeon. Here again we shall need to ensure that the directions we give to local authorities will provide welfare benefits without making unreasonable demands on local authorities.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead).
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in the House would agree with the noble Lord and thank him and the Government for giving us this amendment and tightening up and making sure that there are sufficient inspectors. Of course the veterinary inspector is the important one, as there is no doubt that inspecting is the key to animal welfare. I am sure that the interest of my noble friend Lord Houghton here should be satisfied, as should the welfare bodies which have pressed for this for a long time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, speaking for myself I am grateful that the Government have carried out the promise that they made when the Bill was going through your Lordships' House that before the Bill became law they would introduce a plan to implement Recommendation 37 of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. This naturally pleases the British Veterinary Association, who have sent a note to some of us to express pleasure at seeing the several recommendations made in the Commons, particularly the undertaking given by the Minster that local authorities will be asked to utilise suitably qualified services to have a look at the smaller places that are not suitable for licensing but where slaughter may take place: sometimes the terrible things are done in the smaller rather than the larger establishments.
Of course, this is enforcement, and is not this really the basic problem that we have in this whole field of the application of regulations and codes of practice for the benefit of living things, birds and animals, which go through commercial and other handling for the purpose of serving mankind? This amendment imposes upon local authorities a firmer duty than they probably felt they had before to make full use of these qualified services and have regular inspections and a presence while material operations are in progress.
It is a pity that local authorities are so grumpy just now with the Government and with all forms of statutory obligation. They are probably not in the best of moods to accept new and firmer obligations to undertake tasks of this kind. I know that the expenditure does not fall wholly on the local authority. Nevertheless, there are duties to be done and administrative work in connection with their own side of the matter.

635
I am afraid that this question of enforcement will come up again, probably in an even more imperative form, when we consider the latest report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on the conditions in slaughterhouses of red meat animals. The council is making 100 recommendations, in contrast to only 37 here for poultry. First and foremost is enforcement. A good deal of the enforcement is not based upon new requirements, but on what should be being done now. It is from the failure to carry out this enforcement responsibility fully and satisfactorily that a good many of the unsatisfactory features in slaughterhouses arise. I am sure that the Government are fully conscious of this.
I turn to another side of the matter. Enforcement depends first on local authorities using powers that are given to them. The powers that are given to them under this Bill and under regulations drawn up by the Government will be subject to the annulment procedure if we do not like them. But another part of the responsibility rests upon the veterinary officers themselves.
I read with great interest in the current issue of the The Veterinary Record an article written by a man I know well, an Englishman in the United States, Dr. Michael Fox. I quote the heading of his article:
"Towards a philosophy of veterinary medicine".
This is the part of the matter which the veterinary surgeons themselves have to develop. He said:
"Until very recently, virtually no emphasis has been placed in the veterinary curricula on the moral and social dimensions of veterinary medicine…The practice of veterinary medicine is taught as though it were value-neutral".
This was a comment made by another writer in 1981; but we are entitled to expect now from the veterinary profession a full appreciation of the task that vets are given to do.
It is not enough, in my submission, for a veterinary surgeon just to observe objectively and to have an attitude towards his job which is devoid of the moral and emotional aspect of what he is engaged in. The public are relying, in this unpleasant field of activity and in the treatment of animals, on somebody to be the custodian to some extent of the public conscience. People want to feel satisfied, without having to go into these establishments to see for themselves—they would not be very satisfied if they did—that some responsible, qualified person is taking care, as far as is ever possible, of the welfare of the animals that are undergoing this unpleasant experience.
It is no good just having expertise; it requires more than that. It requires an understanding which medical doctors used not to have in the way that they have today. There was a time when medical practice related to human beings was value-neutral. It was almost like that when people were not getting much help from the medical profession about conditions in which ill-health and disease occurred; and the wider sense of responsibility of the medical profession is something which should be extended to the veterinary profession. That is already afoot.
I am just uttering a few encouraging words to the profession and for the awareness of your Lordships' House on this aspect of the matter. Just to provide a
636
vet is not enough: that vet must have an awareness of the animal world in which he is operating and have an attitude towards animal welfare which reflects, in the fullest measure possible in the circumstances, the growing attitude of the public about the treatment of animals. This sense of public conscience about the treatment of animals is growing deeper and wider all the time, and this should be reflected in the attitude of those with the qualifications and responsibilities which are provided under this clause.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, most closely and in my picking up a point or two from what the noble Lord said it is right for us to bear in mind that veterinary surgeons are obliged by the terms of their membership of the Royal College to promote and protect the welfare of the animals and birds in their care.
The noble Lord said—and I quite understand why—that just to have a skilled vet is not enough. It is right for us to bear in mind in the final stages of this Bill that the Farm Animal Welfare Council laid great stress in its poultry slaughter report on the need to ensure that people who slaughter poultry are properly trained, are competent and are fit for the job. It considered that licensing is an important aspect of providing that assurance. That, again, is another plank in the platform of trying to meet the points which the noble Lord is putting to the Government on this Bill.
Finally, I turn to the words the noble Lord spoke about local authorities. Although local authorities are responsible for enforcement, do not let us forget again that the Ministry veterinary surgeons also make regular visits to all slaughterhouses, both poultry and red meat, and advise both staff and local authority officers on welfare matters. I understand the point which the noble Lord is putting to me about avoiding placing substantial new burdens on local authorities at a time of financial stringency.
We believe that we can provide effective welfare control without making unreasonable demands on local authorities. I give an assurance that before issuing directions we will be consulting the local authority associations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 8, page 7, line 5, after ("issue") insert ("modification, suspension").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This amendment will permit licences and approvals in connection with artificial breeding to be altered without the necessity of first revoking them and then issuing amended ones. It will also be more appropriate and convenient upon occasions to suspend, rather than revoke, such licences and approvals. This really is a technical amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 to 15 [Printed earlier.]
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 15, if your Lordships will allow me, because all these amendments are consequential on the amendments to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 until 7.45 p.m.]

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 35.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 110.
[Printed earlier: col. 610.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which has already been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington before the adjournment. At the end of his remarkable Second Reading speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, advised us to look to the safeguards in this Bill, and implied that many of the powers were necessary. With that approach I entirely agree.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his speech before the adjournment when we were discussing the previous amendment, spoke of this power which is given in this part of the Bill to detain for questioning when there is insufficient evidence to bring a charge, as a new power. He referred to the views of Lord Justice Lawton in a very well-known case, who suggested that this power might be necessary. This Committee has now agreed that those powers are necessary; but I think it is very important that we should look to the safeguards.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, earlier referred to two matters which I think should excite our attention. That is, in the history of the role of the police in criminal proceedings, the noble Lord adverted to the fact that it was only in comparatively recent times that the police themselves had done the investigating and the interrogating. Previously, they were not concerned with that role. The noble Lord particularly pointed to the amendment to the Judges' Rules in 1964 as a landmark along that route. I would submit to this Committee that the police now dangerously rely on—to quote again the noble Lord, Lord Elton—the commencement of the inquiry rather than the conclusion.
I think it is a dangerous practice for the police to rely so much on admissions and confessions. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, was absolutely right to point out that a great deal of the time of the criminal courts these days is taken up with the
638
question of how reliable are what are called "the verbals", that is, the admissions made when accused people are being interrogated.
It appears to me that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, comes down, after a great deal of thought obviously, on the side of the new power being given to the police—this extraordinary power to be able to keep a person in custody when there is not enough evidence to charge him or her with an offence—and he came down, narrowly as it seemed to me from his speech, in favour of this power, then we have to do what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, advised us to do: not so much to question the power as to look to the safeguards. Surely, one of the most important safeguards is the right to have a solicitor present.
It seems to me that when one is concerned with the sophisticated criminal, or the habitual criminal, one does not have to tell him what his rights are, because he knows. Those of us who are emphasising the civil rights aspects of this Bill, while not contesting that the police need very wide and considerable powers, are concerned with the protection of the innocent and, surely, it is the right of any person to have a solicitor present. What is the objection? We all acknowledge that he has the right; but, apparently the presence of a solicitor is to be observed in the breach rather than in the observance.
Why are we afraid of the solicitor being present? There could be a limit on what the solicitor could do. In fact, various matters are dealt with in Clause 56 and there are two important amendments—No. 146 in the names of my noble friends and myself, and No. 146A in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and his friends—which try to deal with the restrictions that there might be on a solicitor who was called in in these circumstances.
What we are concerned with is that a solicitor should be present; not that he would be allowed to interfere with the interrogation. He could certainly give preliminary advice as to what were the accused rights. Although I have talked about the accused, the person has not been accused; it is the person being interrogated—the suspect. The solicitor could certainly tell him what were his rights, which we all acknowledge he has the right to know, though we differ as to the means by which that knowledge should be imparted.
We agree largely that, because of the development of modern crime—and we can think of the crime where there are a number of participants and a number of suspects; some of whom might be innocent, some of whom might he guilty—the power of interrogation in these circumstances is needed. All I am saying is that it is very important that the safeguards should be there. This Amendment No. 110 and Amendments Nos. 116 and 119 simply add the same safeguard at different stages of the interrogation. After all, we are concerned with the right to detain a person in order to try to obtain evidence from him by means of an interrogation, when there is not at that time sufficient evidence to charge him at all. We are concerned in the first amendment with the situation up to 24 hours; in the second amendment up to 36 hours; and in the third amendment up to, possibly, 96 hours. Who is to

639
say that, in these circumstances, a suspected person should not have the right to be interrogated in the presence of a solicitor? I beg to move.
Lord Plant: Can the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, inform the Committee what he means by "in the presence of a solicitor"? He does not say "in the presence of his solicitor". Does he have in mind that it will be a resident police station solicitor?
Lord Hooson: No. I would say that normally it should be in the presence of his solicitor; but if his solicitor is not available, it should be a solicitor.
Lord Denning: I wondered about that myself. "In the presence of a solicitor" does not mean that it is his solicitor. Will it be a police solicitor, just as there is a police doctor, and is there always to be a solicitor on hand in every police station when a man is brought in? The solicitors' profession could not staff it. I am wondering whether this is a practical proposition.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It would clearly be a solicitor under the instructions of the accused in detention. I should have thought that that was pretty self-evident from the context. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, we are dealing here with a situation where a suspect who has not been charged is in a police station in the custody of the police. He may have been there for 24 hours, 36 hours or, in certain cases, 96 hours.
What a contrast there is here in the proposals of the Bill with what is said about maintaining the right of silence in court. There in court the accused is in the presence of his solicitor or his counsel, with the press listening avidly and watchfully. What protection he has there! But what greater protection does he not need alone in a police station, for hours or nights in the police cell with question after question? I am bound to say that, at any rate, there is frankness in the language, because he is being held, as the Bill provides, for questioning. There is no gainsaying that that is the purpose of the exercise.
The curious contradiction we have here, with the reluctance of the Minister to concede the imperative importance of the suspect being able to see a solicitor and to have the benefit of his advice, one sees in the Notes for Guidance at page 32 in the draft codes:
"Access to a solicitor may not be delayed or denied on the grounds that he may advise the person not to answer any questions or that the solicitor was initially asked to attend the police station by someone other than the detained person, provided that the detained person then wishes to see the solicitor.".
There is affirmatively stated the right of the suspect to have access to a solicitor. That access may not be delayed or denied on the grounds that then follow.
This is an absolutely fundamental part of that balance which we must seek to strike in this Bill, between the right of the police to investigate crime and the right of the citizen to enjoy his liberty. Whether that is called a right to silence or a right against self-incrimination is a matter of words. There is little difference between the two. But the right to silence is something for which we have fought, so far as the courts are concerned from the days of the Star Chamber on. This is of crucial importance and what is
640
sought in this amendment is some sort of equality between the two situations.
But before he is charged and is merely under suspicion, where the accused is being held for questioning in the hope that evidence will be discovered through the process of that questioning, is a critical scene in the seriousness of the approach of the Government to the rights of the subject. This we regard as an absolutely critical issue, and to place that as a mere element in the Notes for Guidance, when it ought to stand out loud and clear in the Bill, is a derogation of the duty of the Government to protect the rights of the subject.
Lord Monson: I listened with great interest to what my noble and learned friend Lord Denning said about the right to silence and the fact that this right is evidently not a wholly unqualified one. Of course, one must accept his argument on this matter. But although his argument may well invalidate Amendment No. 109A—and, clearly, the Committee decided narrowly that it did so invalidate it—surely it does not in any way invalidate the series of amendments that we are considering at this moment, which I wholeheartedly support.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I were arrested and detained in a police station and I thought that the conditions were liable to confusion, I should say, "I shall not answer any questions without my solicitor being present". We are trying to make this right available, which it is supposed to be, to everybody. How can there be any objection to it?
Lord Elton: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, on the briefest complete speech we have had during this Committee stage. I cannot, I am afraid, equal his record. May I begin by accepting what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has suggested we should do: take the amendment to mean what we take the context to make it mean rather than what it does mean, because one of the odder things that it means, as drafted, is that whether or not you want a solicitor to be present you have to wait until the solicitor is present before you can answer an questions. I shall not address myself to the unintended results; I shall assume that what is intended is that an arrested person may be detained for the purposes of obtaining evidence by questioning him only if the questioning takes place in the presence of a solicitor, if he wants it.
Moving on from there, and accepting that we must also take it from the context that the solicitor must be the solicitor whom the arrested person has requested, or whom the arrested person has heard has arrived in the police station and says he wants to consult, we turn to a more basic and important issue which is at stake here: that is, whether it should be possible to question, in conditions of detention, a person who does want legal advice but who has not got it.
Let me first describe the position which the Bill will give us without the amendment. The Bill and the associated codes of practice will very substantially strengthen the right of access to legal advice and make it effective in practice as well as on paper. First, Clause 54 establishes for the very first time a statutory right of

641
access to legal advice which may only be suspended in certain very restricted circumstances. The Bill also makes provision for the establishment of duty solicitor schemes under the Legal Aid Act, so that detained persons who want legal advice, at whatever time of the day or night, will be able to obtain it. Section 6 of the draft detention code of practice also requires each detained person to be informed at the outset, both orally and in writing, of his right to legal advice. It also requires the police to ask him, if he does not want to take up his right, to waive it in writing. The code goes on to make it clear that a person may have his solicitor present at an interview, and that only actual misconduct on the solicitor's part will allow the police to require him to leave. These are formidable new safeguards.
The amendment seeks to go further, however. It would prevent the police from detaining a person for the purposes of questioning him and at the same time interfering with his right of access to the solicitor. The trouble is that on occasions—on rare occasions—it may he both right and necessary for the police to do both these things. Suppose, for example, that a person is arrested on suspicion of involvement in a kidnapping and that there are real grounds for fearing that access to a solicitor or anyone else would result in the murder of the victim. The need to question the person is evident and urgent. There can be no doubt about that. Nor can there be any doubt about the need to keep him temporarily incommunicado.
In principle, of course, there is a strong case for an unqualified right of access to legal advice. Such a right exists in many other Western countries. Many bodies which gave evidence to the Royal Commission argued for such an unqualified right and their arguments, like those of the noble Lord, carry great weight. But the Royal Commission did not feel able to accept these arguments, any more than we do, in the light of the practical consequences for the investigation of serious crime. Clause 54 basically gives effect to the commission's recommendations; namely, that while there should be a statutory right of access to legal advice, the present discretion to delay access to it should be retained, even though more strictly regulated, and also placed on a statutory basis.
I should like to ensure at once that there is no misunderstanding on one important point. The only reason for delaying access to a legal adviser concerns the risk that he would, either intentionally or, as in the example I have already given, and much more frequently, inadvertently convey information to confederates still at large which would undercut the investigation in progress and possibly imperil life. It is these considerations alone which lie behind subsections (5) to (9) of Clause 54. What a suspect's legal adviser says to him can never be a ground for delaying a consultation between them. Delay can be authorised only on the basis of what the legal adviser might then do, once the consultation has been completed. Annex B to the draft detention code—the noble Lord quoted it—makes it quite clear that access to a solicitor may not be delayed on the grounds that he may advise the person not to answer any questions, so the provision in Clause 56 enabling the police to delay such a consultation is not designed in order to restrict the giving of legal advice; it is simply a special
642
case of the provision in Clause 54 enabling the police to hold a suspect temporarily incommunicado.
The arguments are all set out very clearly in paragraphs 4.86 to 4.93 of the commission's report and there is not a great deal which I can add to them. The question of whether the right of access to legal advice should be absolute or not is, as the commission said, a finely balanced one, but I believe that the balance tips quite clearly in favour of the Bill as drafted. I would not place too much emphasis on the existence of a small number of dishonest solicitors. There may or may not be dishonest solicitors. I would be surprised if there were not, but I would not wish to repose much on it. It is certainly true that if the police suspect a solicitor of obstructing the course of justice they should acquire the evidence on which to act, whether by way of a prosecution or complaint to the Law Society.
But even if every single solicitor were of unquestionable honesty, there would still he a need for a provision under which access to legal advice could be delayed. The reason is that damage can be done by accident and unwittingly, as well as by design. If a suspect asks a solicitor to pass on an innocent sounding message to his wife or to a friend, the solicitor may thereby cause stolen property to be concealed, accomplices to evade capture or witnesses to be incapacitated. The passing of such a message need involve no misconduct on the part of the solicitor: it may not even involve carelessness. Just a simple message. "Tell the wife I paid the gas bill" can be a tip-off which completely undermines the investigation of a crime.
I hope I have made it clear that the reason for which this provision is in the Bill as drafted is a serious reason. I Would conclude only by saying that the establishment of duty solicitor schemes will reduce still further the already very small proportion of cases in which access to legal advice is denied or delayed. Whatever may have been the practice some years ago, it is now an uncommon event. In a survey conducted in all stations in the metropolitan police district for the three-month period August to October 1982, it was found that in the case of 1,031 persons detained without charge for between 24 and 48 hours—that is, for more than 24 and less than 48 hours—requests for access to legal advice were refused on only six occasions. Nearly half of the 29 persons detained for 48 hours or more asked for legal advice, and this was refused on only one occasion. The fact of the matter is that those who want legal advice are prevented from receiving it only exceptionally at present, and Clause 54 regulates this discretion even more tightly.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Before the noble Lord leaves this matter, does he agree with the notes for guidance which I read out:
"Access to a solicitor may not be delayed or denied on the grounds that he may advise the person not to answer any questions or that the solicitor was initially asked to attend the police station by someone other than the detained person, provided that the detained person then wishes to see the solicitor".
That is not qualified in any respect in paragraph B2A. Does the noble Lord agree with it?
Lord Elton: I think so. There is access to a solicitor. I shall not read it out again. The noble and learned Lord read it right.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 110) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 73.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Ampthill, L.

Mayhew, L.

Attlee, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Monson, L.

Bernstein, L.

Morris, L.

Birk, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chitnis, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Northfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Rhodes, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winstanley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Inglewood, L.

Auckland, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Avon, E.

Killearn, L.

Bauer, L.

Kilmany, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beloff, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belstead, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Mar, C.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Molson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denning, L.

Norfolk, D.

Donegall, M.

Plant, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Reay, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrier, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Tranmire, L.

Glanusk, L.

Trenchard, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Vickers, B.

Gridley, L.

Westbury, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Wise, L.

Wynford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 110ZA:
Page 29, line 30, after ("record") insert ("on the prescribed form").
The noble Lord said: I shall be grateful if, with this amendment, I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 110ZB and 110ZD.
Amendment No. 110ZB: Page 29, line 31, at end insert—
("(4A) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument. Such regulations shall provide that the record shall contain information about reviews of police detention under section 38, limit on period of detention without charge under sections 39, 40 and 41, right to have someone informed under section 54 and access to legal advice under section 56 and a statutory instrument containing any such regulation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
Amendment No. 110ZD: Page 29, line 35, at end insert ("and other matters set out on the prescribed form.").
The Government say, with pride, and, I readily admit, with some justification, that in Clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill they have created certain conditions which safeguard, or go part of the way to safeguard, the position of a detained and suspected person. However, for the suspected person in custody there is a limited value to safeguards, unless those safeguards are spelt out to him.
I appreciate that this is ground which, in part, has already been heavily harrowed in previous debates on this matter, and the Committee has been reminded by many noble Lords of the miserable loneliness of the suspect in a police station when being interrogated. It is something that has been commented upon by the Royal Commission. It was commented upon by Sir Henry Fisher in his historic report. Mr. Michael Zander has written about it on many occasions and it must indeed be a situation well known to everybody who in some way or another is associated with the administration of criminal justice.
The purpose of these amendments is to see to it that certain rights are spelt out specifically to people in custody. It may well be that those people are totally innocent of any criminal offence at all. It may well be that they are people who have never been in a police station before: most, certainly, will never have been in custody on any previous occasion. In many cases they will have no idea whatsoever of the intricate structures incorporated in this Bill by your Lordships and the other House. Short of clairvoyance or telepathy there is no way in which they could be aware of their rights. In many other cases they will be vaguely aware of what rights they have but so petrified will they be by fear and apprehension that that may well be the last thing that they will be thinking about at that particular time. A man who has been in custody for five hours may be much more concerned with whether somebody has let his wife know where he is and when he is likely to be coming home than thinking about particular subsections of this Act.
Therefore, the rationale behind these amendments is that if a citizen has rights, and these are fundamental rights of human liberty, then he should have the right

645
to be specifically informed of them. The scheme set out in the amendments is that grounds for detention should be written out by the custody officer on a prescribed form and that that prescribed form should also contain information as to reviews of detention, limits on periods of detention, the right to have someone informed, and to have access to legal advice. At the same time as informing the individual of the grounds of detention the custody officer should also inform him of his rights under the Bill and hand him a copy of the form setting out the grounds of detention and his rights.
I wonder if the House would allow me to make this additional point. We do not on all occasions universally applaud the procedures in the United States of America but in this particular matter, where an individual is brought to a local police station, the first question of the officer in charge of the station to the arresting officer is, "Have you read him his rights?" If this has not been done then the individual is read his rights as to legal advice and all the other matters.
We are all too well aware of situations where innocent but tired, frightened, disorientated persons from time to time have confessed to grave crimes which they have never committed. Sometimes these matters can be put right by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Sometimes, as in the Confait case that we know of so well, the matter can be corrected by the unusual course of setting up a high-powered inquiry. Sometimes the Home Office itself—and I speak with some experience as a former Under-Secretary of State dealing with these matters many years ago—is able to correct the situation by setting up its own inquiries. But in many, many cases the miscarriage of justice will never be expunged. We owe it to the standards of British justice to seek, on this occasion when the whole matter is so brought under the microscope, to create a system that expunges the possibility of error as far as we are able to bring about such a result. We on these Benches genuinely believe that this amendment will go a long way towards bringing about that just and happy result. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord's amendment strikes out Clause 35(4)(i). The purpose of Clause 35(4) is to require the custody officer to make a note on the custody record when a person who has not been charged is by him authorised to be kept in detention. I said at the outset that I think the noble Lord is seeking to achieve what he wants to achieve from the wrong direction because what he wants to achieve for the person detained, is a written notice of his rights; and what he is seeking to do is to convert the custody record into such a written record for the prisoner to have to hand all the time. The noble Lord will forgive me if I address myself not to the substance but to the intention of this amendment.
The intention of this amendment is that a prisoner shall be told of his fundamental rights when he is in detention in a police station at the earliest opportunity. I have to refer him once more to the code of conduct. At page 5, paragraph 3.2, he will see:
"The custody officer must inform him of the following rights and that they need not be exercised immediately:
(i) the right to have someone informed of his detention in accordance with section 5 below; (ii) the right to legal advice in
646
accordance with section 6 below; (iii) the right to consult this and the other codes of practice.
3.3 The custody officer must also give the detained person a written notice setting out the above three rights, the right to a copy of the custody record in accordance with paragraph 2.4 above and the caution in the terms prescribed in paragraph 11.2 below. The custody officer shall ask him to sign the custody record to acknowledge receipt of this notice.
He will therefore actually have a written statement and it will moreover be endorsed on the custody record because the detainee will be asked to sign the custody record as an acknowledgement of receipt of the statement of his rights. I hope that that is what the noble Lord wanted to achieve.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, says that he will have a record of his rights. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord and indeed to those police officers who will be carrying out these duties, I think it would be more accurate if the House were to say to itself that he may have such a record.
The point has been made in the Royal Commission's report and by many learned legal authors with regard to the Judges' Rules. It is put in this way: that a police officer who does not learn the Judges' Rules syllable by syllable is a fool; but the police officer who carries out the Judges' Rules day by day, syllable by syllable, is an even greater fool. That is a well-known saying among police officers. The reason for that is that they know that, when massive breaches of the Judges' Rules are proven in court—it is surprising how candid police officers under cross-examination very often are: they know exactly what the rules are and they readily admit that there was a breach—the learned judge will very often say to the jury, "What you have to decide is whether in fact he told the truth". The jury will dismiss from its collective mind the whole question of the Judges' Rules. Indeed, before that stage, when, in the absence of the jury, a trial within a trial has been held in order to determine the admissibility of a confession statement, the judge will turn to counsel and say, "What do you say about the breach of the Judges' Rules? Do they really go to the question of voluntariness?" Many judges will regard the Judges' Rules as being an interesting manifestation of a perfect system of police interrogation, but little more than that.
May I, against that background, take issue with the noble Lord the Minister. He has already quoted from Clause 64(7), which sets out the status of the codes of practice. The relevant words here, in my submission, are:
"in all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence, and if any provision of such a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question".
I repeat the words:
"if any provision of such a code appears to the court … to be relevant".
It may well appear to many courts that these provisions will not be all that relevant; they will not be given a higher status than the Judges' Rules.
It is for that reason—and I am sorry to repeat myself in relation to what I said on an earlier amendment—that we say that these rights are so

647
important, and these safeguards so necessary, that they must be written into the Bill itself.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 110ZB, 110ZC, 110ZD not moved.]
8.33 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 110ZE:
Page 29, line 40, at end insert—
("() In the case of an arrested juvenile, he shall be informed by the custody officer of the grounds for his detention and the written record shall be made in his presence and the presence of any person who is required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act or, in their absence, an adult person who is not a police officer.").
The noble Baroness said: What I should really like to do is to move Amendment No. 110ZE and, for the convenience of the Committee and also for the benefit of moving on, speak to nine further related amendments of which I gave notice to the Government Whips' Office and which all refer to exactly the same principle.
Baroness Trumpington: May I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, whether this is the bunch of amendments to which he referred just now? I ask because, if so, that was the first that we had heard of them on the Front Bench of this side of the Committee. I am afraid there was not time for my noble friend to put them together, so I am afraid I had to turn down the request.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I follow that, but after the intimate conversation we had together I learned from my noble friend that, in fact, the Government Whips' Office was informed some days ago of this intention. In the interests of the speed of completion of matters it would be convenient for these amendments to be taken together. However, I see expressions of dismay, if not disappointment, in the direction to which I am not, apparently, allowed to look according to the rules of your Lordships' House. But if they could be dealt with together it would be a great saving of time—and, if I may say so, time is beginning to be of the essence.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I can help. Not being a usual channel I may get it wrong, but in practical terms it might be helpful. If the noble Baroness adduces the general principles now, when she comes to the particular amendments she can speak to them briefly. I propose to answer only to the two Amendments Nos. 110ZE and 111ZC which were agreed. I think the noble Baroness will find that I have different answers to her different amendments, so she will be well advised to keep them apart.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I should apologise for not having the necessary information.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I did not, either, but all is well. Let us continue.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I did my best to hurry things on. I shall speak to the principle which embraces all these amendments. The amendments concerned are
648
Amendments Nos. 110E, 111ZC, 114ZA, 114ZB and Amendments Nos. 116A to 116E.
Amendment No. 110E: Page 30, line 22, after ("him") insert ("and any person who is required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act").
Amendment No. 111ZC: Clause 36, page 31, line 39, at end insert—
("() in the case of an arrested juvenile, he shall be informed by the custody officer of the grounds for his detention and the written record shall be made in his presence and in the presence of any person who is required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act or, in their absence, an adult person who is not a police officer.")
Amendment No. 114Z4: Clause 38, page 35, line 9, at end insert—
("and
(c) in the case of an arrested juvenile, any person who is required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act and who is available at the time of the review or who can be made available within reasonable time.")
Amendment No. 114ZB: Page 35, line 13, after ("solicitor") insert ("and any other person referred to in subsection (11(c) above").
Amendment No. 116A: Clause 40, page 27, line 25, insert after ("person") ("and in the case of an arrested juvenile, any person who is required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act of the same matter, and").
Amendment No. 116B: Page 37, line 34, at end insert ("or
() in the case of an arrested juvenile, any person who is required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act.")
Amendment No. 116C: Page 37, line 38, insert after ("solicitor") ("and any other person referred to in subsection (5)(a) above.")
Amendment No. 116D: Page 37, line 42, after ("detention") insert ("and in the case of an arrested juvenile, any person who is referred to in subsection (5)(a) above.")
Amendment No. 116E: Page 38, line 7, after ("him") insert ("and in the case of an arrested juvenile any person who is referred to in subsection (5)(a) above").
After I have spoken to the principle, the Minister can then respond in part. The principle is of fundamental importance, and especially important for the cohesion of the family as well as the well being of juveniles. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the police are under a duty to keep parents, guardians, and so on—in fact, any of those people mentioned in Clause 55—informed of a juvenile's detention and the reasons for the detention, and, in certain circumstances, allow them to make representations about the continued detention.
Not only does this accord with the general movement towards greater parental responsibility for their children, but it also provides greater safeguards about lengthy, unnecessary detention of juveniles—time during which juveniles can begin to feel extremely alienated from the police, if they have done nothing wrong, and which brings a risk of objectionable behaviour from them, together with a general feeling of fear.
I know that the Minister will say that the essence of all these amendments has now been included in the revised code of practice, and, of course, we are very pleased that this should be so. Nevertheless, we feel very strongly that the only way to recognise the special status of children and young people is to take this important duty of the police out of the code and to put it into the Bill itself. There has already been discussion about this on another issue, but I would argue very strongly that this is a matter of principle which should be within the statute and not in the code of practice.
There is no doubt that the Government have shown their determination to enhance the principle of parental responsibility. To mention this very briefly, this was reflected in what the noble Lord, Lord

649
Trefgarne, said during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill, when, in the context of a provision in that Bill making parents more responsible for their children's fines, he said:
"The family is the first and foremost influence for good or ill on a child's development. It is of the highest importance that parents execise their influence for good, and they must be supported in this by the law. The responsibility which parents have is one of the weightiest of the citizen".
The noble Lord says that the responsibility of parents should be supported by law. The purpose of these amendments is to do exactly that: to make parents feel, and, indeed, to help them to be, responsible for their children by keeping them in contact with every stage of a child's detention and what happens thereafter.
I do not think I need say anything else except that it is a very important issue for the family as a whole when one thinks of the anxiety caused to parents when they do not know where their children are. I am told that there are many cases where parents have not been informed and where there does not seem to have been any particular good reason why they should not have been. Sometimes it would even look as if it was more convenient for the police not to inform them. I know that one argument put forward is that some parents would not be in the least bit interested in knowing that their children are in detention. But I would say that that argument merely condones the irresponsibility of certain parents rather than requiring and urging them to be good parents. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The sympathies of the noble Baroness with the young are shared on both sides of the Committee. I sympathise with the purpose underlying her amendments, which I take to be to ensure that parents, guardians or other persons with specific responsibilities for the welfare of an arrested juvenile are told at the earliest practical moment not only of the facts of and grounds for detention, as is required by Clause 55, but preferably at the same time as the juvenile himself is told. But when we come to practicalities I do not find it so easy to follow her plan.
There is the practical difficulty which the amendments recognise but do not deal with satisfactorily. For instance, what is to happen if the parents are not at the police station when the detention is authorised? That of course is likely to be the case. I think that it would be wrong for the juvenile not to be informed of the grounds for his detention until the adult arrived. Unfortunately, it is well known that the police often experience great difficulty in getting the parents of arrested juveniles to come to the police station. Some of them simply do not want to know. One may regret that, but one cannot legislate as if it was not the case.
The noble Baroness suggested that another adult who is not a policeman would do. But just any old adult who happens not to be a policeman does not seem to us to be particularly practical and certainly does not provide any safeguards. It is like drawing a passing dustman in to be a witness to an impromptu wedding. It could be any person who happened to be in the station or passing at the time. I do not see that that is an effective solution.
I point to the fact that in the draft detention code, as
650
the noble Baroness agreed, at paragraph 3.6 there is a requirement that that information should be given to the arrested juvenile in the presence of his parents if they are already at the station at the time; and if they are not, it must be given to them when they arrive. I do not see that in practical terms it is possible to go further than that. We should then be legislating for people who, sadly, do not always exist.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I do not think that the point the Minister has made is a very good one. If we adjust the law to suit irresponsible parents, they will then be more irresponsible; but if we create law which requires parents to be more responsible, there is more hope that they will be. It is not a case of informing just anybody. The young person could say whom he wanted to be informed. He may have a friend, or there may be a guardian. It is not a case of informing just anybody in the street of the child's detention.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness says that that is not the case, but it is what she has in her amendment. If she means something else, it would be interesting to know what.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am saddened that the Minister has not responded in any way to what I see as a very important part of trying to keep the cohesion of a family and to make parents relate to the problems of their children, which is the purpose of this amendment. However, perhaps we may think about the proposal and put it forward in another way later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 30, line 4, leave out ("informed that he may be liable to prosecution and").
The noble Lord said: With this we may discuss Amendments Nos. 110B and 110C.
Amendment No. 110B: Page 30, line 6, at end insert—
("() Where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (7)(b) above; and

(b) at the time of his release a decision whether he should be prosecuted for the offence for which he was arrested has not been taken,

it shall be the duty of the custody officer so to inform him.").
Amendment No. 110C: Page 30 line 7, leave out ("charged") and insert ("dealt with under subsection (7) above").
Subsection (7) places a duty on the custody officer, in a case where there is sufficient evidence to charge an arrested person, either to charge him or to release him with a warning that he may be summonsed. As drafted, the subsection gives the custody officer no other options. There are however two such options which the Bill ought to provide. First, there is the situation in which it is clear that no prosecution should or will be brought. I do not think I need say much about that. It might happen, for example, that the custody officer takes the view that no useful purpose at all would be served by proceeding to the prosecution of a mentally ill person who has been arrested, quite lawfully, for the theft of a milk bottle.
The second option which the subsection does not at present recognise is the formal caution used as an alternative to prosecution, on which we have of course

651
only recently published a report. We think, as did the Royal Commission, that the caution is a valuable procedure whose use should be encouraged so far as possible
The first two amendments in this group provide for these two options. They make it clear that if a person is not to be charged then he must be released and told if a prosecution may still take place. They therefore permit the person to be released after a formal caution has already been administered.
The third amendment is consequential. Subsection (8) permits a person who is unfit to be charged to be detained until he is in a fit state. Clearly if a person is arrested dead drunk he may have to be detained for his own protection; but equally clearly it would be a pointless charade to try to charge him if he was incapable of understanding the significance of what was said to him. The amendment provides that such an unfit person may be detained until he is in a fit state not necessarily to be charged but to be dealt with in any of the four ways I have described in introducing the first two amendments in this group. It may be, for example, that he is to be cautioned. A number of experimental cautioning schemes for adult drunkenness offenders are now in progress, and it is of course desirable that the Bill should not, inadvertently, cut the legal ground from under their feet. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 110B and 110C.
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 110D:
Page 30, line 8, at end insert ("but shall be examined as soon as possible by a medical practitioner who upon the conclusion of such an examination shall certify whether he is in a fit state to be kept in custody or not.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is further to safeguard a person who may well be in such a medical condition that he should not be at a police station at all. It would legislate for the situation where such a person is in a police station and is unable to be charged. In the words of Clause 35(8):
"If the person arrested is not in a fit state to be charged, he may be kept in police detention until he is".
As noble Lords will be well aware, the background to this is that every year a significant number of persons die in police custody. Since Britain is a country which highly values human life and greatly appreciates the principle of human liberty, searching questions are rightly asked in every such situation.
In many cases there will be no blame on anybody at all. People die almost everywhere—on railway stations football grounds, buses and other places, including in police stations. In many of those cases there is a feeling that, had greater care been taken to see that a medical examination took place at an early stage, death may well have been avoided.
Although the draft codes contain specific directions on such matters, we believe that the amendment would take the matter slightly further in a justifiable direction. We believe that it is a necessary provision and that it would greatly strengthen this part of the Bill. In conclusion, may I quote what is said in the third report from the Home Affairs Committee, Deaths in Police Custody. It is at page 93 of that report:
"A police officer cannot and should not be expected to assume the responsibility of knowing the presence or absence of illness of injury, the more so where alcohol complicates the overall clinical picture. Many infirmities are known to mimic alcohol and/or drug intoxication."
Therefore, it is in the light of such a necessary development that we tender this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Of course, I support this. The important point here is that if the Government had taken the slightest notice of the advice that experts have been giving them for the last 15 years, the man who arrives in a police station dead drunk would not be there at all: he would go to a drying out centre where he receives proper attention. This question has been fiddled about with by Governments for years and they are still trying it out. Here is a very good illustration of its necessity. It is quite unreasonable to expect a policemen to tell the difference between a man who is drunk and a man who is ill. Such a person should be admitted into a place where this can be done automatically. Recommendations have been given in detail again and again and very little action has been taken on them.
Lord Elton: Sadly, a number of people do from time to time die in police custody. I was not aware that any of them had died because the police had thought they were drunk when in fact they were ill. May I quote—because the noble Lord referred to it and I shall refer to it, and I think it would be best that the Committee should know what I am referring to—from the code of practice, paragraph 10:
"If a person brought to a police station appears to be suffering from physical or mental illness or is injured or is incoherent, or somnolent, or is thought to be a drug addict or otherwise to need medical attention, or if a detained person is injured or taken ill, or appears to be ill, the custody officer must immediately call the police surgeon, or, in urgent cases, send the person to hospital or call the nearest available medical pracitioner. This applies even if the person makes no complaint and whether or not he has recently had medical treatment elsewhere".
It goes on to say in the next sub-paragraph:
"If it appears to the custody officer or he is told that a person brought to the police station under arrest may be suffering from an infectious disease of any significance he must take steps to isolate the person and his property until he has obtained medical direction as to where the person should be taken"—
and so on. It continues:
"If a detained person requests a medical examination, the police surgeon must be called as soon as practicable. He may in addition be examined by a medical practitioner of his own choice and at his own expense".
So there is ample provision for medical cover. I quite understand the concern which lies behind the amendment. In many cases where a person is not fit to be charged it would be right to have him examined by a doctor, and that is provided for.
The draft code provides in unavoidable detail for

653
this provision. The amendment goes a step further and requires the police to call a doctor in each and every case where a person is unfit to be charged. Here I think we get into unnecessary questions of practicality. If a person is plainly unfit to be charged because he has lost his temper and is struggling violently with officers trying to restrain him, the sensible course is to defer the charging procedure until he has cooled down to the extent that he can take in what is said to him, particularly the caution. It does not seem to us necessary to have to call in a doctor automatically, if that or something like it happens and if no injury is sustained in the process.
I repeat that I understand and sympathise with the reasons behind the noble Lord's amendment. I would also remind the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—I am sure he has not forgotten—that we are experimenting with work shelters at the moment. It is a fascinating subject. When I was at the Department of Health and Social Security I had an interest that equals my interest now. However, I shall not pursue it or the difficulties which we are finding in the experiment. The fact is that we are aware of drunkenness. We are introducing a scheme of cautioning for drunkenness to try to keep these people out of police stations. I believe the medical requirements are already adequately provided for.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The instance given by the noble Lord the Minister, of a person who is not fit to be charged because he is in such a temper, I feel does not really meet the substance of this amendment. Subsection (8) is dealing with a different situation. Although it is accepted that there are three substantial paragraphs in the draft code of practice legislating as to when a doctor should be called, none of those deals with a person who shows outwards signs of drunkeness. It does not really meet the case of the person who is comatose, stinking of drink but in fact suffering from a substantial brain condition, or perhaps from a fractured skull. I beg the Minister to look again and to see whether this matter can be dealt with in greater detail so as to meet those particular cases. In my respectful submission, they are cases which lead to a number of deaths in police custody every year. On that basis I am very prepared to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Amendment No. 110E.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I have already spoken to this.
Lord Elton: I think the noble Baroness would be advised to move Amendment No. 110E.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Not moved—
Lord Elton: Such a contribution from the noble Baroness is so rare, I would not want to miss one.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The Government have had a group of three amendments of which No. 110E was one.
Baroness David: Move it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 110E:
[Printed earlier: col. 648.]
The noble Baroness said: I will move this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: So generous is the Opposition that we are willing to look even a gifthorse in the mouth, but only for a moment or two.
Lord Elton: If the noble and learned Lord looks a gifthorse in the mouth for too long it will say, "Nay"! As the noble Baroness explained at an earlier stage, subsection (10) refers to decisions under Section 5 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which has not been brought into force. Clause 55 already requires the parents of an arrested juvenile, or in certain cases other persons, to be informed of his detention, the reason for it and the place of detention. I agree that it would be reasonable for them to be provided with the additional information required by the amendment if Section 5 were to be brought into force. The Government are therefore able to accept this amendment in principle, but the drafting requires a little further thought. I hate to add that little codicil, but I hope the noble Baroness will be content with the intention behind my words.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, naturally, and thank him very much indeed, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Elton: If the Committee would permit me, I think I ought to speak because I think the rule book says if the Committee say, "No", we have to vote. As I understand it, we would then put a faintly defective amendment into the Bill and we would have to amend it at the next stage. What I am offering to do is to provide a Government amendment with the same effect as the noble Baroness intends. I can only do that if she withdraws her amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In view of the undertaking given by the Minister, we ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 111.
[Printed earlier: col. 609.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Duties of custody officer after charge]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 111ZA.
Page 31, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the police merely detaining juveniles after charge on the basis of their own good. Of course, we appreciate that this is not a new power which is being incorporated in this Bill. The power already exists in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. However, we are concerned that such a power can be exercised solely on the subjective thinking of a single police officer. We are concerned that the retention of the subsection might increase instances where a young person is detained beyond the end of the interview simply because, as is sometimes the case now, the police do not believe that he is telling the truth, so it is in his own interest to remain there until, presumably, they are satisfied that he will tell the truth.
If the Bill does not permit this for adults, I really see no justification for applying it to juveniles. Moreover, if it is considered necessary to detain an arrested juvenile after charge for his own and others' protection, then the police will already have the power to do so under Clause 36(1)(a)(ii) of the Bill. This clause which covers both adults and juveniles allows a power of detention to a police officer who,
"has reasonable gounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary for his own protection or to prevent him from causing physical injury to any other person or from causing loss of or damage to property".
Surely, this must adequately cover what are the only justified reasons for detention in this context. I beg to move.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Elton: Subsection (1)(b)(ii) which the amendment would omit is intended to continue the effect of Sections 28 and 29 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The provisions work like this. If a juvenile is charged with an offence, he may be retained in custody pending his production before a court on the charge if such detention would be in his own interests. In this event, the juvenile must be transferred to the custody of the local authority pending his court appearance unless he is too unruly for this to be appropriate. The provisions of Clause 36(1), (7), (8) and (9) do no more than continue the effect of the 1969 Act.
In particular, the 1969 Act clearly authorises the detention, normally in local authority custody but sometimes necessarily in police custody, of a juvenile who has been charged with an offence if such detention is necessary in his own interests. This is deliberately wide language, and the Bill repeats it. The provisions of the 1969 Act do not apply only to medical cases. They apply also to cases in which a juvenile has no satisfactory home to go hack to or where he is a very long way from home. Your Lordships will have many emotive examples in mind.
Let me quote one that is quite a frequent occurrence. The example, I think, bears out the need for the reserve power in the 1969 Act. It is that of a boy from Carlisle who decides to play truant and gets on to the London train without a ticket. This happens quite often. He is arrested by the British Transport police. They charge him with an offence. His parents do not want to come to London to collect him. In these circumstances, the police cannot clearly be required to
required to
656
release him on to the streets with nowhere to go. It is necessary to provide for his detention until his production in court later that day or the following day. I hope that that has convinced the noble Baroness that we need the power for the protection of the young people in question.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The Minister has given an example of this juvenile running away from home and coming to London and whose parents do not want to collect him. Surely, however, this juvenile is in need of some other kind of care and protection, not detention in a police station. Is detention really necessary for a young person who needs some other kind of care?
Lord Elton: These arrangements cannot be made instantaneously. It is often necessary for the police to detain a person in custody until he has somewhere else for him to go.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am not totally convinced that the best place for a young person in need of care is a police station. However, I would like to think that it is only a temporary measure, as the noble Lord says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 111ZB:
Page 31, line 32, after ("of") insert ("and a copy handed to").
The noble Lord said: I can move this amendment in short compass. As your Lordships are aware, under Clause 36(5), it is incumbent on the custody officer to keep a record of the charge and, at the same time, to inform the person charged of the grounds for his detention. Invariably, when such records are kept they are made upon carbon sheets so that three or four copies will always be available. All that the amendment asks is that a copy should be handed to the person charged. It seems, in my submission, to be nothing more than a courtesy and common sense and might avoid a great deal of argument, perhaps many months later.
Lord Elton: I knew that it would happen. Are we talking to Amendments Nos. 1 10ZC and 111ZB together? That is what I am about to do. Your Lordships can ignore any bits that you do not think apposite. I think, however that this is right. The amendments would require the custody officer to give detained persons a written copy of the grounds for detention before and after charge. Clauses 35(5) and 36(5) require that this information be given to the detained person orally. I should remind the Committee that paragraph 2.4 of the draft code of practice on the treatment and questioning of suspects entitles a detained person or his legal representative to obtain a copy of his custody record on his release or within 12 months thereafter. The grounds for detention will be recorded there under paragraph 3.9.
Paragraph 3.3 expressly requires the custody officer to inform persons of the right to a copy of the record on their release both orally and in writing. Solicitors will also no doubt advise their clients of their right to a copy of the record. If a person wants a copy of his record and therefore of the grounds for detention, he

657
will have every opportunity to get one. I am not sure that I see the purpose of going beyond these provisions in the way that these amendments propose. It would require the police to go to the trouble and expense of producing copies in order to give them to people who may have expressed no interest in seeing one. That would be a misuse of resources. The person must be told by word of mouth. I think that that is a significant safeguard. I do not see the necessity of adding to it on paper.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The point would not be improved if I were to repeat again the arguments that I deployed in moving the amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 111ZC:
[Printed earlier: col. 648.]
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to this amendment in principle but I should like to emphasise to the Minister the point that I made previously. This amendment states that there should be,
"the presence of any person who is required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act or, in their absence, an adult person who is not a police officer".
That is the point I was making—that there should be an adult in attendance on a young person under detention, in order to avoid lengthy detention. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I think this is the survivor of the original group, and that I have already spoken to it. I will not weary your Lordships by giving again our reasons for not accepting it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 31, line 43, leave out from first ("so") to second ("make") in line 1 on page 32.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is allied to some extent to some of those moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, but it is perhaps a much stronger amendment. Clause 36(7) of this Bill states:
"Where a custody officer authorises an arrested juvenile to be kept in police detention under subsection (I) above, the custody officer shall, unless he certifies that it is impracticable to do so"—
Then we ask to delete a number of words, with the subsection going on to say:
"make arrangements for the arrested juvenile to be taken into the care of a local authority and detained by the authority, and it shall be lawful to detain him in pursuance of the arrangements".
The object of this probing amendment—at this stage it is a probing amendment—is an effort to take juveniles out of the penal system so far as is possible and practicable. It is not always possible; it is not always practicable. In regard to unruliness certificates, I shall hope to speak to that subject on the Question that Schedule 6 stand part.
Her Majesty's Government have recognised the need for keeping children and young persons out of the
658
penal system. We are grateful and glad to see in the consultation document on cautioning by the police, which has just been issued, that the first sentence of that document states, concerning juveniles:
"It is recognised, both in theory and in practice, that delay in the entry of a young person into the formal criminal justice system as represented by the institution of criminal proceedings may help to prevent his entry into that system altogether".
I must underline that statement in the consultation document and say that once a juvenile enters the penal system it is extremely difficult to deflect him afterwards.
Furthermore, in the debate on 28th June 1982 on the Criminal Justice Bill, in moving Amendment No. 48 I suggested that juveniles on remand should not be sent to adult prisons or penal institutions. In Hansard of 28th June 1982, at col. 69, the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Trefgarne, said:
"This new clause seeks to do something which the Government are already committed to trying to achieve. We are therefore wholly in sympathy with the intention behind it, which is to bring to an end the remand to prison of juveniles".
Later on in the debate I wanted to clarify the situation and I asked the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, if I was to understand that it was the Government's policy in the long run to have enough accommodation so that juveniles on remand for criminal offences were not sent to prison. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, "Yes, most certainly".
We have now come to this Bill. I am fully aware that there is the question of cost. It must be remembered that now no child under the age of 15 goes to a penal institution; no girl goes to a penal institution; but boys of 15 and 16 are remanded to penal institutions and kept in police stations.
The prison service, the police service, and the social services are hard pressed. If those services are hard pressed and there is a question of cost, then surely on balance the needs of the young people should be considered. My noble friend Lord Elton in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that something had to be done about a child. Let me say in answer to my noble friend that every social service department in this country should have—and I would suggest does have—a night service and a day service—in fact, a 24-hour service. Many is the night that I have been woken at one, two or three o'clock in the morning because of a child at the police station. The police would ask me to come down and fetch the child rather than (a) keep him or her in the police station or (b) move the child to a penal institution. I believe that that is how it should be. I do not think that children should be remanded or kept either at the police station or in penal institutions.
Of course it will be said that this will be expensive for social services departments. But where is the expense to lie? Is it to lie with the police? Is it to lie with the prison service (which is overcrowded in any case), or is it to lie with the social services? At the end of the day I suggest that this is perhaps the moment at which Her Majesty's Government should consider exactly what are the principles which they themselves are putting forward and have stated in the new consultative document.
I do not know whether I should also speak to Amendment No. I 1113; perhaps it would be better if I

659
dealt only with Amendment No. 111A at this stage. My plea to Her Majesty's Government—and I underline that this is a probing amendment—is that young persons should, as far as possible and practicable, be kept out of the penal system and they should be dealt with by the social services department. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: By way of preface, let me say that if the noble Baroness is woken tomorrow morning at the hours of one, two, or three o'clock regrettably it will be likely to be by the Division bell and not her telephone! The Government fully accept the objective which my noble friend seeks to achieve by her amendment. It is extraordinary how probing amendments seem to succeed in this place. We are prepared to accept the amendment. It is clearly far better for arrested juveniles, so far as is practicable, to be transferred into the care of a local authority instead of being held in a police station.
When my right honourable friend the Minister of State dealt with a similar amendment at the Committee stage of this Bill in the other place, he gave an undertaking to consider the matter further to see how best to deal in this Bill with the concept of certificates of unruliness. We have been working towards an amendment of our own. We have been giving particular attention to what, if my noble friend's amendment is accepted, would be the unrepealed part of the provision, defining the residual circumstances in which an arrested juvenile need not be transferred to local authority care. I am afraid that it has not been possible to have such an amendment ready for your Lordships' Committee to consider today. But that amendment would certainly have included the change which my noble friend now proposes. Therefore, while we may wish to propose some further changes at the next stage of your Lordships' deliberations on this Bill (which your Lordships should know would be of a minor drafting nature and would certainly not be intended to undermine the purpose of this change), in the meantime I am happy to commend to your Lordships the amendment which my noble friend has moved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 111B:
Page 32, line 4, at end insert—
(" () Subsection (7) above shall not authorise a local authority to detain an arrested juvenile in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty unless it appears that—

(i) he is charged with an offence imprisonable in the case of a person aged 21 or over for 14 years or more, or

(ii) he is charged with an offence of violence, or has previously been convicted of an offence of violence and in either case it appears that any accommodation other than that provided for the purpose of restricting liberty is inappropriate because he is likely to abscond from such accommodation, or to injure himself or other people if he is kept in any such accommodation.").

The noble Baroness said: I must be guided by my noble friend the Minister on this amendment because I am not sure that it fits into the Bill as it deals with the way in which children in a social services department are dealt with in secure accommodation run by the local authority. I shall continue to speak unless my noble friend stops me.
What I simply wanted to point out was that there is a slight difficulty in that when children are remanded to secure accommodation in the care of the local authority, certain rules are laid down. These rules have not been laid down for children held at a police station and, therefore, should not the same rules apply? Here again it is a probing amendment. I am not sure that it should be included in the Bill, but I shall be guided by my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Elton: I think I should say that this is a useful time for an exchange to be put on the record, but I cannot commend the amendment as such to your Lordships. Again, we entirely share the concern which has been expressed. Resort to secure accommodation to restrict the liberty of young persons who are in the charge of local authorities should clearly be confined to those cases where it is necessary. The general restrictions on the use of secure accommodation are now to be found in Section 21A of the Child Care Act 1980 and the Secure Accommodation (No. 2) Regulations 1983. However, when the 1983 regulations were drawn up it was thought best to exclude certain categories of cases, and one such category was that of arrested juveniles.
I have a condensed history, of how these powers came to be as they are, but I do not want to extend too much what I have to say. Recently my noble friend was kind enough to give warning of her conclusion—I am making the great mistake of trying to leave bits out, and not being certain where, having leapt into the dark, my foot will next land on the ground. I have to ask my noble friend not to press her amendment (other than the procedural one) for two reasons. The first is that if the amendment is intended to bring the position of arrested juveniles into line with that of remanded juveniles—an intention which the Government would share—I fear that it fails to do so. Certainly the position of young offenders within the category described in the amendment would be the same; that is, those who are charged with offences normally carrying imprisonment for 14 years or more, or with offences of violence, or who have previously been convicted of an offence of violence and who satisfy the other criteria set out in the amendment.
However, youngsters on remand may also be held in secure accommodation if they meet the conditions specified in Section 21A(1) of the Child Care Act 1980. Those conditions are—and I paraphrase—that it appears that the young person either has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond again if he is not kept in secure accommodation; and, if he absconds, his physical, mental or moral welfare is likely to be at risk; or he is likely to injure himself or others if he is not kept in secure accommodation.
The effect of including the amendment in this Bill rather than applying Section 21A(1) through an amendment of the regulations would, however, be that these primary grounds for resort to secure accommodation would not apply in the case of the general run of arrested juveniles. This would mean that arrested juveniles were in a significantly different position from remanded juveniles which would, I believe—and I think that my noble friend agrees with me—be wrong in principle.

661
The second point may perhaps be more significant. It is this. In general, restrictions upon the use of secure accommodation are prescribed in the Secure Accommodation (No. 2) Regulations 1983, coupled with Section 21A of the Child Care Act 1980.
I now pick up the point which my noble friend generously put at the head of her speech. In our view the most sensible way to achieve the objective which I think we all seek—that is, to bring the position of the arrested juvenile into line with that of the remanded juvenile—is to amend the 1983 regulations. This whole area of the law does not need the additional complications which result when provisions dealing with similar but individual matters are liberally sprinkled throughout the pages of the state book. If your Lordships agree, therefore, we shall prepare the required amendment to bring arrested juveniles within the scope of the regulations as soon as possible.
At the same time we propose to bring under the regulations another group of cases in which the use of secure accommodation is not at present subject to restrictions. These are cases of young people who have been detained by police officers in a place of safety, under Section 28(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. I think that that proposal will also be welcomed by the Committee, and I hope that with those undertakings my noble friend will feel that her work is being done without the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for his assurances, and I shall read in Hansard what he has said. I am most grateful to him, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Responsibilities in relation to persons detained]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 32, line 10, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (4)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a simple drafting oversight. While the custody officer at a police station should clearly be responsible for the welfare and treatment of those detained there, equally clearly he cannot, and should not, be personally responsible for what happens to a juvenile who is then transferred under Clause 36(6) to the care of a local authority pending his production in court on a charge. It is for the local authority concerned to ensure that he is properly treated, adequately cared for, and produced in court the next day. The amendment makes it clear that the custody officer's remit does not extend to local authority accommodation, and on this commonsense basis I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 32, line 23, leave out ("the offence for which that person was arrested") and insert ("an offence for which that person is in police detention")
The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) provides for the case where a person in custody at a police station is in
662
the charge not of the custody officer, but rather of the officer responsible for the investigation in progress. This may happen where a suspect is taken to an interview room to be questioned, or perhaps taken outside the police station to be present at a search of premises. In these circumstances the custody officer cannot control what happens to the suspect, and it is therefore clearly right that not he, but the officer in charge of the investigation, should carry responsibility for the suspect's treatment. Subsection (2) so provides.
The trouble with subsection (2) as drafted is that it assumes, wrongly, that a person in detention is always detained in connection with the offence for which he was originally arrested. But of course this is not always the case. A person may be arrested on suspicion of rape, but in the process of clearing himself of that suspicion he may reveal that he has been indulging, for instance, in burglary. The amendment simply recognises this possibility and makes it clear when it is that the custody officer's responsibility is passed to the investigating officer, irrespective or the original reason for the person's arrest. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 113ZA:
Page 32, line 40, at end insert—
("and
() It shall be the duty of the local authority to ensure that the arrested juvenile is treated in accordance with the duties and responsibilities imposed on the local authority under section 18(1), (2) and (3) of the Child Care Act 1980 in respect of children in their care.")
The noble Baroness said: May I move this amendment briefly and in a spirit of inquiry? I should like to ask the Minister about the treatment of young people. There is at present a lacuna in the law regarding the treatment of juveniles who have been arrested and detained by the police and then transferred to the custody of a local authority. While in police custody young persons would benefit from the safeguards provided under this Bill and the code of practice as regards their treatment while in detention but once they are passed over to the local authority, in the care of which they would not be considered to be, there is no statutory provision governing how they are to be treated while with the local authority.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the local authority is under a duty to apply the welfare principle of Section 18(1), (2) and (3) of the Child Care Act to this particular category of young persons. Perhaps the Minister will say whether this is unnecessary and whether the safeguard already exists. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I understand the concern that has been expressed about the absence of any specific reference in this Bill to the conditions that are to apply when an arrested juvenile is in the charge of a local authority pending his first appearance in court. If it happens that an arrested juvenile cannot be transferred to a local authority, but continues to be held in a police station, his detention there would be subject to the terms of this legislation, under a code prepared thereunder, but a local authority would not be bound to observe a code.

663
When the Government were faced with a similar amendment in another place it was thought inappropriate to attract to arrested juveniles the provisions in Section 18 of the Child Care Act. Those provisions were drafted to deal with a situation involving children and young people who are in the care of a local authority for much longer periods of time. In such cases it is, naturally, very important that particular significance should be attached to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the juvenile and to ascertain, and give due consideration to, his wishes and his feelings. The position of the arrested juvenile is quite different. As an arrested juvenile he is with the local authority for a relatively short time, perhaps no more than a few hours, or a day or so, and normally no more than 72 hours. In such circumstances the Government doubted the need to attract the provisions of Section 18.
In addition, we were concerned that the amendment which was down in the other place sought to attract only subsections (1) and (2) of Section 18 and not subsection (3). Sub-section (3) is very important. Its effect is that the local authority is not bound to give first consideration to the welfare of the juvenile or to give due consideration to the wishes and feelings of the juvenile if to do so would be contrary to the interests of public protection.
Because it also attracts subsection (3) the amendment that has been put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, is infinitely better than that tabled in another place. Your Lordships will not be surprised that that should be so. As to the need for such an amendment, we are sympathetic with what the noble Baroness seeks to do, but the detailed drafting of the amendment requires some technical attention. It may be preferable to tackle the matter in a different way. Therefore, if the noble Baroness is prepared not to press the amendment today, we can see how best the required objective might be achieved and come forward with our own proposals at the next stage.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to the Minister for such a very positive response and I look forward to seeing what he brings forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Review of police detention]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 113A.
Page 33, line 24, at end insert ("(or failing that the most senior officer available)").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 113B, which is consequential.
Amendment No. 113B: Page 34, line 3, leave out from ("questioned") to end of line 5.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that a review of detention may, in exceptional circumstances, be carried out by an officer of lower rank than that of inspector. Obviously it is desirable that, wherever possible, the review should be carried out by
664
someone of the rank of inspector or above, but there are bound to be occasions when nobody of that rank is available. One thinks of police stations in rural areas, for example, or even of police stations in urban areas when an emergency of an unusual gravity is afoot; for example, the Harrods bomb explosion, the Libyan Embassy siege, or perhaps an incident involving violent mass picketing. In those circumstances it is surely better that a sergeant, for example, should carry out the review than that the review should not be carried out at all. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The clause before your Lordships, Clause 38, requires an officer of at least inspector rank to review the detention of an uncharged person within six hours, and thereafter at nine-hourly intervals. The first of these amendments would permit an officer below the rank of inspector to perform this duty if no other officer was available. As a corollary to that weakening of the safeguards, the second amendment would delete the provision in subsection (4)(b)(ii), which permits a review to be postponed, if an officer of the rank of inspector is not readily available.
We are therefore debating a balance of safeguards. Our proposal is that reviews of detention before charge must always be performed by an officer of the rank of inspector or above. Since senior officers may be called away from a police station for a variety of urgent reasons, some of which the noble Lord has adduced, or may arrive later than expected, we have had to acknowledge that it may be necessary from time to time to postpone the review if such a senior officer is not readily available when the review falls due.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, approaches the problem from the opposite direction. In his view the holding of reviews at the intervals laid down in the clause is more important than the rank of the officer who performs the task I suppose that is a matter very much of judgment, whether the balance of advantage lies in sticking firmly to rank and allowing a measure of leeway over time, or vice versa. Our view, however, is that the balance struck in the Bill is the better one. The scheme is progressive in the sense that the longer detention lasts, the more senior, the more demanding and the more independent the review. Amendment No. 113A would interrupt that sequence.
I think I might be able to share the view of the matter of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if there were a risk that reviews had to he postponed often and for lengthy periods. But I remind your Lordships that, as a result of the Government amendments to Clauses 29 and 34, any period of detention exceeding six hours will have to take place at a designated police station; that is, at a station with the facilities and complement to cater for the detention of suspects. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that an inspector will be unavailable for any lengthy period, and I certainly do not envisage the possibility that an entire review might have to be dropped out altogether.
We are talking about having to cater for temporary absences to attend to pressing operational matters, or where there are a very large number of suspects concurrently detained and a certain amount of queueing cannot be avoided. I think it is better to settle for this than to open up the possibility that a junior officer could act as a review officer. Your Lordships

665
will remember that there is already the let-out on the custody officer, where, unavoidably, his duties may have to be discharged by somebody who is not a sergeant. I become a little anxious when we start having the next stage up being performed by somebody who is not an inspector. It is a narrow balance, but I think we have got it right and I hope that the noble Lord will agree.
Lord Monson: I am not entirely happy about what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said. Suppose that for some reason or other the first review cannot take place until 10 hours after the person is detained. Would the subsequent review then take place nine hours after that, or could the noble Lord give an assurance that as a quid pro quo for the long delay before the first review takes place the second and subsequent reviews could be speeded up? If the noble Lord were able to give that assurance, I would be much happier about withdrawing this amendment.
Lord Elton: Looking at the Bill, I am not certain that I can give that assurance because we have in subsection (3):

"(a) the first review shall be not later than six hours after the detention was first authorised;

(b) the second review shall be not later than nine hours after the first;

(c) subsequent reviews shall be at intervals of not more than nine hours".

I think the noble Lord has given me food for thought as to what might happen if there was a delay longer than intended. Perhaps we can both consider this between now and Report.
Lord Monson: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113B not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 34, line 26, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 38 provides for the periodic review of a person's detention. Subsections (7) to (9) impose duties on the officer conducting the review, these duties being defined by reference back to the custody officer's duties under Clause 35. While subsections (7) and (8) apply subsections (1) to (6) of Clause 35 in this way, subsection (9) applies only subsections (1) to (5). This was an unintentional slip which this amendment corrects. If a custody officer does not have to inform a person of the grounds for his detention at the time it is authorised because the person is, say violent or in urgent need of medical attention, it must be right that the review officer does not have to, either. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 114ZA:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to the amendment bringing in the principle of this amendment as part of the batch that I moved earlier. The principle, if I may remind the Minister, is to ensure that the police are under a duty to keep parents, guardians or any adult other than a police officer informed of a juvenile's detention. I will therefore not repeat what I have said already. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has not repeated what she said. I do not think there is much point in my repeating what I said, since I have nothing new to say.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 114ZB not moved]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Limits on period of detention without charge]:
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendments Nos. 114ZC and 115A:
Page 35, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) Subject to subsections (2) (3) and (4) of this section, an arrested juvenile who is not under investigation for a serious arrestable offence shall not be kept in police detention for more than 6 hours without being charged.").
Page 36, line 27, at end insert—
(" () An arrested juvenile who falls within subsection (1A) above who at the expiry of 6 hours after the relevant time is in police detention and has not been charged shall be released at that time either on bail or without bail.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 114ZC and 115A together. I feel that the justification for both these amendments lies in the fact that there are really very strong arguments for making a special case within this Bill for juveniles. I do not think it has been stressed enough during either the Second Reading or the Committee stage so far that many of these new powers will mainly affect young people. It will be young people who will suffer more from the new stop and search powers and they will come within the law more often through these proposed new powers.
It is not my intention to try to shield young people from the law, as all statistics show that there are more young people who are committing crimes, but I think these amendments are important for the purpose of safeguarding those juveniles who are not suspected of serious arrestable offences, for the following reasons. First, it was shown in a survey made in Hillingdon and in other reports about young peoples' reactions to stop and search powers and so on that the average law-abiding young person has a great respect for law and order until he or she has been subjected to stop and search or has been in custody. Then he or she feels alienated, and that all-important relationship between the young person and the police deteriorates. So, clearly, the longer the young offender is kept in police detention the more likely is that relationship to deteriorate.
Secondly, six hours is a very long time to be in a police station under investigation. Indeed, as has already been said, it is the limit under the Scottish system for anyone to be held for investigation. The longer a young person is subjected to this frightening experience the more likely he or she is to feel hostility, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, to say just anything in order to be released. The young offender can find himself in real trouble, either for making a false confession incriminating himself or for behaving badly towards the police. As has already been said during this Committee stage, adult suspects become very anxious when kept in custody, and I would say that this is even more the case for young people.
I do fear that the balance, which has been mentioned often during this debate, whereby the police are given sufficient powers to enforce the law without alienating the community has really not been held so far as young people are concerned. When people talk about this Bill being instrumental in alienating a whole generation of young people, I find it extremely worrying. Therefore I should like to ask the
668
Minister to think very carefully and to look very seriously at these two amendments that I have put down. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I think we have to think very carefully about this issue, because the purpose of the limits on detention before charge is to ensure that the police have adequate time to investigate offences while protecting the detained person. Regrettably, many crimes are now committed by persons under 17. Many of these will be serious without constituting serious arrestable offences. The fact that it is a young person who is suspected will not make the investigation simpler. Precisely the same amount of time may be needed to complete the investigation as if it had been committed by an adult. In fact, I cannot see that the age of the offender makes any difference to the complexity of the case. The fact that all kinds of additional safeguards for juveniles are required by the draft codes of practice is likely to mean that the investigation will take more time rather than less, compared with an adult. If the police cannot, other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, begin interviewing an arrested juvenile before his parents or some other responsible adult have come to the police station, it is not difficult to see how a couple of hours could slip away before the investigation could even get off the ground and that would leave very little time, if the noble Baroness's amendments were accepted.
That leads me to say that we have to accept that very serious crimes are often committed by rather young people. In all these cases, the correct way to achieve the necessary balance in this area is to ensure that proper safeguards are provided, not to impose time limits which are likely in some cases to be quite unrealistic. I am sorry that I cannot be more encouraging. I know that the noble Baroness's heart is conspicuously in the right place, but I am afraid that she is setting about this in the wrong way.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend the Minister this question. If a young person is likely to need to be remanded for more than six hours, or even for less than six hours, is it possible for him to be held by the local authority rather than to be detained in the police station for that length of time? I have to confess that this has often happened to me in the past, whether rightly or wrongly, and it seems to me that this would meet the point of the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may also say that statistics show that the highest crime rate is with the 14s, 15s and 16s and as they grow older they commit less and less crime. At that stage, one does not want them to go into the penal system at all if one can possibly help it, and one does not want to hold them at police stations. Is it not within the realms of possibility that the local authority could hold those children, pending the police making inquiries?
I have to confess that the police and I together used the place-of-safety orders. It was possible for a place-of-safety order to be used which prevented a child from being held in the police station. In fact, the child was held by the social services department and in that way the request of the noble Baroness could be met. I wonder whether circumstances have now changed.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: The circumstances have changed a very great deal, in that some of the children that I have in mind would run away. They would not be seen from here to the other end of Southend. They could not be held, even if they were put in a remand centre in the charge of a very responsible local authority. They would walk out and would not be seen again until they were apprehended many hundreds of miles away. It is very important that the police should be able to follow the offence through, and that is very difficult if they have to let the child go because they are unable to keep him for more than six hours. To impose a time limit would be wrong and restricting to the police.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to both of my noble friends for raising this point and I absolutely endorse what my latter noble friend said about time limits. But I would direct the former of my noble friends, Lady Faithfull, to Clause 36(7), which we have just discussed:
"Where a custody officer authorises an arrested juvenile to be kept in police detention under subsection (1) above, the custody officer shall, unless he certifies that it is impracticable to do so … make arrangements for the arrested juvenile to be taken into the care of a local authority and detained by the authority, and it shall be lawful to detain him in pursuance of the arrangements".
It then becomes a question of whether the authority is capable of detaining him. That makes it a question of whether suitable accommodation is available near enough to the place where the investigations are being conducted, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this from being done.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend the Minister. Through him, may I say that there are many young persons who will run away. I have known young persons to run away from police stations. I would rather that they were taken to secure accommodation within the local authority. My experience is that however great absconders they may be, children can be held in secure accommodation run by the local authority. I believe that this is how it should be. If it is not, we should work towards it.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I, from these Benches, say that I fully support the noble Baroness?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should very much like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for her support and for her suggestion. I completely agree with her that the purpose of many of these amendments is to keep young people out of the penal system. We know that once they have entered it, the road to future crime seems to be more assured. I still believe that my six-hour limit is correct. Very many juveniles who are not hardened criminals will have said everything that they have to say during the six-hour period. By then they will be in a thoroughly confused, and possibly alienated, state. If six hours is a sufficiently long period under the Scottish system, I believe that it should apply also in England. May I thank the Minister for his reply. I should like to think about the matter and consider whether to bring something back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.54 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 114ZD:
Page 35, line 42, leave out from ("arrested") to end of line 43 and insert ("was arrested.").
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships know, Clause 39 provides that for the purpose of calculating periods of detention, time will run from the relevant time, which in nearly all cases will be the time of the suspect's arrival at the police station, following arrest. As the clause now stands, it prescribes three starting points from which calculations of time should be made, depending upon where the suspect has been arrested. The first is if a person has been arrested in a police area within England and Wales. Where no inquiry has been made into an offence, time runs from the time when a person arrives at a police station in a police area where the offence is being investigated or, at the very latest, 24 hours from the person's arrest.
The second period of time is where the person concerned was arrested outside England and Wales. Time will start to run from the moment of his arrival at a police station in a police area within England and Wales where the offence is being investigated. The third period of time is that which covers all the other cases, which in effect means that in the majority of cases where the arrest takes place in the police area where the offence is being investigated, time will run from the time of arrival at the first police station to which the suspect is taken after arrest.
We respectfully hold the view that time should run from the time of arrest. Indeed, one bears very much in mind the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, in Christie v. Leachinsky, when he said that arrest was the beginning of imprisonment. Therefore, we say that time should run from the very moment when arrest takes place in the police area in which the offence is being investigated. We say that time should run from the moment of arrest.
However, we acknowledge that this could lead to serious difficulty in certain cases where the arrest has to be made outside a police area where the investigation is taking place. In those instances where an arrest has to be made outside the police area—perhaps at some considerable distance away or even in another part of the United Kingdom—serious inconvenience to the investigation might result from an obligation to bring a person arrested before a magistrates' court for authorisation of further detention at a time 36 hours from the time of arrest.
However, we can see no good reason why time should not run from the time of arrest in one third of the cases set out; namely, where the arrest takes place in a police area where the offence is being investigated. We accept that this solution is far from ideal but it will deal no doubt with the vast majority of cases, and the suspect in such cases will have the benefit of the protection of a detention provision immediately upon arrest. Where a serious arrestable offence has been committed and further time is needed for the investigation of that offence, the police will of course be able to make application to the magistrates' court for a warrant of extended detention. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is of course quite right to point out that a person who is placed under arrest loses his liberty from that moment and not from the time when he is taken into a police station. Nevertheless, I hope that I can explain to the Committee why the Government concluded that it was necessary for the detention clock to be started at the later point, even in the generality of straightforward cases to which the noble Lord referred.
The first point to make is that the Bill will impose wholly new time-keeping disciplines on the police. As the Committee will know, the only judgment of time that at present has to be made is whether or not it will be practicable to bring an arrested person before a court within 24 hours. In contrast, the Bill sets out a detailed sequence of reviews and limits. In many ways, it reflects current good practice in many police stations; but the obligations it places on the police to work with one eye on the clock and against the clock is wholly new.
Custody officers of police stations—particularly busy ones—will have to exercise continuing scrutiny on the progress of cases. It would present serious practical difficulties if there were not a clear and agreed starting point for the detention clock to run. Often, the exact time when an arrest is made will not be known—particularly in the case of situations involving public disorder. And although Clause 43(2) provides for a degree of approximation in relation to times, it would be thoroughly confusing if a number of persons arrested at the same incident and brought to a police station at the same time had personal detention clocks showing different times because some had been waiting in the police coach, following their arrest, longer than others.
The proposed amendment would undoubtedly lead to disputes about detention times which were not readily capable of settlement. Disputes would arise where persons were interviewed under caution but without being arrested. The amendment would also tend to undermine what we regard as the very important principle that the custody officer is personally responsible for the treatment of all persons detained at his station—including the provision of reviews of detention at the appropriate time and the release of persons at the appropriate time.
It is difficult to expect the custody officer to undertake that responsibility—which can of course have the severest disciplinary consequences—if the point at which it starts is outside his control, supervision and indeed knowledge.
In matters of this kind we should, rightly, be very careful about placing matters of administration above the liberty of the individual. But this is more than a matter of simple administrative convenience. The role of the custody officer is central to the safeguards underlying the detention scheme in the Bill—anything that undermines the effectiveness of his control would be against the best interests of the detained person. Moreover, in practical terms in the great majority of cases the difference between the time of arrest and the time of detention is likely to be so small as to have no significant effect on the overall length of detention.
In general, offences are committed locally and investigated locally. In the majority of cases the
672
arrested person is taken speedily to the nearest police station. Clause 29, to which the Committee has agreed, allows for delay only where it is necessary to carry out immediate investigation into the offence concerned. Nor does Clause 29 in reality open up a large loophole in the regulation of detention. Subsection (3) of that clause requires an explanation of the reasons for delay to be recorded on arrival at the police station, and any abuse of the discretion will be readily checkable. The Royal Commission placed great weight on workability as a criterion of any legislative proposal.
Those are our reasons for opposing the proposals in this amendment. Having recited them, I should like to remind your Lordships of two further points. The first is that an identical amendment was rejected in another place. The second—which may carry rather more weight with noble Lords opposite—is that the Royal Commission itself recommended explicitly in their report that the time limit should begin to operate from the time of arrival at the police station rather than the time of arrest. We are in such good company, and with such good reason, I hope the noble Lord will not persist.
Lord Airedale: The Minister may be quite right in saying that in the majority of cases the time of arrest and time of arrival at the police station are not very different. But what about those other cases where the time may be very different? Suppose there is a disturbance and the police start arresting people and putting them in the police vehicle, and then the police have to remain at the place of the disturbance until they can quell it. Some of those people may be in that vehicle for a considerable time. Then there is the journey to the police station—and those two times are sometimes going to be some considerable distance apart. What we are dealing with here is a general principle that a person shall not be kept for more than 24 hours in detention without being charged. This is for the protection of the person, and not for the convenience of the police. The person does not care tuppence whether he is in a black maria or at the police station. It is just as bad for him. It may be worse for him to be in the vehicle than at the police station.
I should have thought that this principle ought to be strictly held to in the interests of the person for whose benefit it is laid down: that 24 hours without being charged means 24 hours from the time you are arrested.
Lord Elton: We were dealing with the generalities of cases, and the noble Lord has brought in a particular case. For the first part I should say that it is not the custom of the police to keep people penned up in vehicles for great lengths of time until it is convenient for them to move them. They certainly do have to wait until they have a sufficient number of people to move. That is why I said that there could be confusion if a batch of arrested people arrived at the police station, all in connection with the same offence, and had different individual custody clocks running, each one differing by a few minutes.

673
The second consideration I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind is that indeed we are concerned principally with the protection of the rights of the arrested individual, who does not care tuppence about administrative convenience but does care fourpence, I would say, about whether or not the system works. The linchpin of the system is the custody officer. The noble Lord is suggesting the custody officer should have perhaps a dozen or fifteen people, each with a custody clock running a minute behind or in front of the next chap, all of whom have to be dealt with, as it were, at 60-second intervals at each stage of the review.
The third thing to bear in mind is that the custody officer, upon whom the person in whose sympathy the noble Lord is engaged entirely depends for the protection of his citizen's rights, would be asked to operate a system over the start of which he had absolutely no control and possibly no knowledge. The man would come in with a label saying, "10.331/2". Those are practical considerations but they have practical results.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: With the greatest respect, we on this side of the Committee do not take the same rosy view of the situation as does the Minister. Of course, in most cases the object of the exercise will be to take the suspect along to the police station as soon as possible.
Lord Elton: May I reinforce the words of the noble Lord? It is not merely the object of the exercise, it is a requirement under Clause 29(1). It is a legal requirement. It is not a question of when it is handy, convenient or fits in with the policeman's tour of duty. It is his duty to take him "as soon as practicable".
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I appreciate that. I was perhaps doing less than justice to the wording of that provision; although as I understand it there is no absolute sanction if there is a breach of that provision. I accept that in most cases—in the vast majority of cases—the suspect will be taken along speedily to the police station. However, there will be other cases when that will not happen, even when there is no question of taking the suspect outside the area in which the offence has been committed.
I give an example. Often police officers will turn up with a warrant for arrest and search in relation to stolen goods. Half a dozen officers will be searching the house. A detective-sergeant will be conducting an interview with the suspect. From time to time goods will be brought down to the back kitchen where the officer and the suspect are. The goods will be found in all parts of the house. As each item is brought down there will be a separate little interview regarding that particular item. It may be that the totality of those interviews will run to a couple of hours. That often happens in receiving cases. In those circumstances, is it right that the clock should begin to run only from the time that that person is taken to the police station?
We believe that there are some very real cases—albeit a minority, but often serious cases—that are outside the ambit of protection offered by Clause 29. Therefore, we beg the Minister to give this matter his urgent reconsideration.
Lord Elton: I have only one thought to add to your Lordships' minds at this stage, because I think I have made our position clear; that is, the faint irony of the position that the noble Lord has so often said that the code of practice does not give sufficient guarantee and that there should be a provision on the face of the Bill, but now that we have it on the face of the Bill in Clause 29(1) he is not satisfied by that either. I hope your Lordships will support me and not him in the Division which I think he is about to call.
Lord Morris: I am concerned that Clause 29(1) does not lay a duty on the police constable to take the arrested person to a police station as soon as practicable. It certainly does not say that. All it says is that,
"he shall be taken to a police station by a constable".
Is there any distinction between that wording and a specific laying down of a duty on the constable so to do, or have I totally misinterpreted this subsection?
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord has experience of police constables having arrested someone and handing him over to a person who is not a police constable to take him to the police station I shall be very interested to hear of it. The duty is quite clear that the person has to be taken with all practical speed to the police station and he has to be taken by a policeman.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am sure that I do not disappoint the noble Lord the Minister when I say that we have no intention of pressing the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 114ZE not moved.]
10.9 p.m.
Lord Plant Lord Plant moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 36, line 16, leave out ("at a police station").
The noble Lord said: Clause 39 quite properly seeks to limit the period a person is to be detained without charge and sets out various circumstances from when the period of 24 hours begins to run. This is clearly linked with Clauses 40 and 41. Looking closely at these provisions from a practical point of view, there are areas where problems can easily arise and which appear to have been overlooked by the drafters of the Bill.
For instance, police may be called to a factory where a burglar has fallen through the roof and is found lying unconscious. They may be called to a house where a man has killed his wife and has attempted to kill himself. He may be alive, but have serious injuries. At present such people would be taken to hospital under arrest and kept under guard until released. Clearly they would have been arrested, but it would be impossible to carry out the functions laid down in the Bill. The Bill must cater for those circumstances. It must not be left to the ingenuity of the police to circumnavigate the inflexible time limits in the Bill.
That argument found favour in another place and the clause was amended. Subsection (5), on page 36, is entirely new. If it is read together with Clause 111, which defines police detention, it appears that in the situation postulated above the period in hospital will fall outside detention for the purposes of the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, now proposes an amendment to Clause 111 on behalf of the Government. If it is accepted by the Committee, that would nullify the efforts already made by the Government to cater for the eventuality.
My argument has been clearly expressed. The gap which I seek to plug is the one where a person is taken directly to hospital from the scene of a crime, suffering from serious injuries. Subsection (5), read together with Clause 111, as it is proposed to be amended, would have the effect that a wrongdoer, who was unable to communicate for four days, unconscious and under police guard at a hospital, would fall within the provisions of the Bill for review of detention, release, and so on, after 96 hours. Such a situation is patently absurd. The Bill caters for the situation where a prisoner is taken to hospital from a police station. I suggest that, through a drafting error, the case of an injured person taken directly to hospital has been overlooked. To remedy that omission, the words, "at a police station", on page 36, at line 16 should be deleted. I think that we should do that in the true spirit of this revising Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has referred to an amendment which I think has been taken off the Marshalled List, but we are nonetheless grateful to him for drawing attention in this amendment to an oversight on our part. It may, indeed, happen from time to time—not I hope more than very occasionally—that a person who is detained at a police station and is then taken out of the station for some reason falls ill or may be injured in an accident. If he has to be taken to hospital, it is I think clearly desirable that any time he spends there does not count towards the total limits on detention, in the same way as time spent in hospital does not count under subsection (5) as drafted if he is taken ill or injured inside the police station. If that were not the case, the police could find that they had run up against the buffers of 24 or 96 hours, as appropriate, without having had any opportunity to interview the suspect or otherwise investigate the offence.
I should therefore like to commend the principle of this amendment to your Lordships. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that we should like an opportunity to bring forward a Government amendment at a later stage to meet the point that he has helpfully identified. It may well be differently drafted, since it is, I think, likely that we shall want to build into the clause the requirement for the relevant custody officer to be informed of such a development, and there is no provision for that in the amendment. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Plant: Yes; I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 36, line 22, leave out ("such time") and insert ("time while he is in hospital or on his way there or back")
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment which replaces the expression "such time" in subsection (5) by a longer, but what is thought to be a clearer, form of words. The trouble with the expression "such time" is that it refers back to the time during which a person in hospital is being questioned, whereas of course what is meant is the time during which he is in hospital but is not being questioned. This is what my amendment clarifies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115A not moved.]
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Authorisation of continued detention]:
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 116:
[Printed earlier: col. 610.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 110. As I imagine that the answer will be as unsatisfactory now as it was then, I do not propose to pursue it, but I should like to ask one question. It says here that,
"the detention of that person without charge is necessary to secure or preserve evidence … or to obtain such evidence by questioning him".
If he says, as he is entitled to, on arrest, that he is not going to answer any questions, or certainly not without his solicitor, is he entitled to be kept for 36 hours while nobody asks him any questions and he does not answer any? It seems rather foolish. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Amendment proposed:
Page 36, line 42, at end insert ("in the presence of a solicitor;").
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With respect, I am waiting for an answer. I am not going to press it. I am waiting for an answer.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has formally moved his amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am so sorry.
Lord Elton: Confusion reigns. I understand that the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 116. He has moved Amendment No. 116. He has not spoken to amendment No. 119 which I expected him to do, which is a remarkably similar one.
What I am trying to grasp and I have not quite got is the question which the noble Lord has asked me specifically, because I had a wider answer than is necessary. The answer to his question, I can tell him, is that it will depend upon the circumstances and it will differ from time to time. I do not think that is going to give him much comfort.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is no comfort, but I will not pursue it now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 116A to 116E. These amendments are part of the group of related amendments which I spoke to in the first place. They bring the duty of the police to keep parents—
Lord Elton: Would the noble Baroness give way? I am told she has not. I was going to ask whether that is what she meant, because she said she was moving Amendments Nos. 116A to 116E. As I understand it, the ones in between have already been taken with Amendment No. 114ZA. If I am right in that, the noble Baroness is speaking for a second time to some of them. I do not in the least mind what happens now because she has only to move one of them, anyway.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The Minister is quite right. I therefore only move Amendment No. 116A.
[Printed earlier: col. 648.]
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is still related to the other group of amendments which has the same aim of bringing the duty of the police to keep parents informed of the detention of their young people within the Bill and out of the code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I can say at once that we agree with the principle underlying the amendments. Paragraph 16.2 of the draft detention code makes clear that parents must be permitted to make representations to the superintendent. I agree that the parents should then be informed of the superintendent's decision. I have no doubt that this would happen automatically, but we shall ensure that it is mentioned explicitly in the next draft of the code.
Similarly, paragraph 3.6 of the code makes clear that the parents of the detained juvenile must be informed of his right to legal advice as soon as they arrive at the station. We shall amend the code to ensure that, if present, they will be reminded of this right if the superintendent authorises detention under Clause 40. I hope that this specific undertaking will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: As I have previously stated, I am grateful to the Minister that this point has been included in the revised code of practice. It would, however, be our preference to see it in the Bill, rather than in the code of practice. I can see that the Minister is rot at all keen on that, and so we shall probably ponder gloomily upon it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 116B, 116C, 116D and 116E not moved.]
10.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: This Question gives rise to examination of the provisions for detention without charge for the purposes of questioning a suspect. These provisions, in our submission, make a massive inroad into private liberty. The governing principle of common law is that a man is entitled to his liberty and may, if necessary, defend his own freedom by force; a good, notable statement of what the common law provides as a governing rule. We submit that the provisions in the Bill for detention without charge on suspicion for the purposes of questioning by the police are a massive interference with the right to keep silent; that is to say, the right of a suspect not to incriminate himself—a right that has existed since the days of the Court of Star Chamber. In our submission, this is in many ways the most serious aspect of the parts of the Bill with which we are in total disagreement.
The combination of long periods of detention, lack of timous legal advice and interrogation by police officers will render it almost impossible for suspects to stand on their right to silence. In his report into the wrongful conviction of Lattimore, Salih and Leyton in the Confait case, Sir Henry Fisher, drawing upon a decision of Lord Justice General Cooper, in the case of Chalmers in 1954, uttered persuasive words that I do not think have been mentioned in the debates on this Bill up to now, but which are of such sufficient importance for me to quote from them at a little length:
"In the eyes of every ordinary citizen, the venue"—
that is to say, the police station,
"is a sinister one. When he stands alone in such a place confronted by several police officers, usually some of high rank, the dice are loaded against him, expecially as he knows that there is no one to corroborate him as to what exactly occurred during an interrogation, how it was conducted, and how long it lasted. If under such circumstances cross-examination is pursued with the result, though perhaps not with the deliberate object, of causing him to break down and to condemn himself out of his own mouth, the impropriety of the proceedings cannot be cured by the giving of any number of formal cautions or by the introduction of some officer other than the questioner to record the ultimate statement. In the ordinary case, as many decisions now demonstrate, that statement if tendered in evidence at the trial will not be treated as possessing that quality of spontaneity on which our law insists, and its rejection, when tendered in evidence may, and sometimes does, wreck the prosecution".
Your Lordships will recollect that that arose out of the Confait case, in which innocent young men were all convicted of murder on the basis of confessions obtained in the fashion summarised in that report by Sir Henry Fisher.
The period proposed for the power of detention—up to 96 hours—is far longer than that allowed in any jurisdiction based upon the law of this country. At this time of night I will not give examples from the jurisdictions in Australia, New Zealand and other countries. It is a price far too high to pay for the only limited benefit that could possibly emerge from such a very long term of detention for questioning without charge. We submit that in this connection it is very significant that not only are these provisions bad in principle and an intolerable infringement on the rights of the subject but they are not effective and for all practical purposes will serve little use in the battle against crime.

679
A survey conducted for the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in 1979 showed that less than 0·43 per cent.—in other words, less than one-half of 1 per cent.—of arrested persons were held for more than 72 hours; so that the lengthy periods may affect comparatively few people. However, as a judge has said of the figures: "The percentage may be tiny but we are concerned with people, not percentages". Lord Justice Donaldson, in the case of In Re Sherman and Apps, was the author of that very wise statement.
The fact that so few people are detained for so long—in the metropolitan police area, in the last quarter of 1983, no one, in fact, was detained for 96 hours—raises the whole question of the necessity for that detention and shows that certainly it would not be an unbearable burden for the courts to have more judicial control over the detention. Our submission is that these excessive provisions are unjust and inequitable and an interference of an intolerable character with the liberty of the subject, but with the additional disadvantage that for practical purposes they are ineffective.
There is much more that could be said about this part of the Bill, but in many ways it goes to the crux of the criticism that has been made against the Bill that here it has far and away exceeded the powers necessary for the police, and done so in a way that, if this becomes the law, will be the source of great mischief and of great conflict between the citizen and the police, and in so far as we are concerned with the battle against crime, will be counter-productive.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: As far as we on these Benches are concerned, our view is firmly that if this power, which earlier this afternoon was endorsed by the Committee—this power to interrogate persons in police stations when they have not been charged, in order to get them to incriminate themselves, so that they may provide evidence against themselves—is to be granted to the police, then that interrogation should be carried out only if the person has a legal representative. That is our view and as that matter has not been accepted by this Committee we are root and branch against this clause which enables people to be kept not only for 24 hours but for far longer periods.
This is yet another example in the Bill of first bestowing an unobjectionable right upon the individual and then, a little later in the Bill, adding a provision which in reality destroys what has been granted. We have seen it stated that: "you shall be entitled to legal advice": "you shall be entitled to have a friend told if you are incarcerated in a police station"; and "you are entitled to have a solicitor at an interview". All those rights can be delayed, taken away and refused. It is laid down that a contemporary note shall be taken of an interview with a police officer. That can be deferred. It is laid down in the Bill that the intimate samples can be taken only by doctors, but then you find that they can, in fact, be taken by police officers. Here the principle is laid down that: "you shall not be kept in a police station for more than 24 hours": but when you turn over the page you find that that also has been taken away from you and the period can be extended for up to 96 hours.
680
I am afraid that that is what has happened in this Bill over and over again. In my submission it is a mockery of the civil liberties side of the Bill. There are so many good things in it. So many things have been done which needed doing. So many good principles have been established and so many rights given, only to find over and over again that at the crucial moment they are taken away and once again we have what we have been fighting against year after year—you have to caution people; you have to give them their rights; and then you find that they are taken away in some section of the Judges' Rules, in some judgment by some judge, and so on and so forth. Here was the opportunity once and for all to establish these rights so that they cannot be removed. Once again we find the provision that the 24 hours are to be extended in this way. We are totally against this clause.
Lord Denning: I hope that your Lordships will let this clause stand part of the Bill. It is certainly a most important provision. We are altering the common law; but this concept of police detention is, to my mind, essential in modern society in order to be able to investigate cases properly and eventually to bring the accused to justice. These investigations cannot be satisfactorily conducted if the man is allowed out. There is the danger that he will get in touch with accomplices or even innocently through a solicitor that he may get his hands on the money which has already been stolen. These new provisions are subject to many safeguards. All the reviews are by a custody officer or by a superintendent—as here—and others, and eventually by the courts. It is an important new provision, but it seems to be essential in modern society for our protection against criminals.
Lord Monson: I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, could tell us whether the Government have given any consideration to the possibility of paying compensation to innocent individuals who have been detained for long periods of time and who have then been released without any criminal charge being preferred against them. If some such provision were inserted into the Bill, Clause 40 might be a little less objectionable than it is at present. Is there not some provision in the Prevention of Terrorism Act for paying compensation to innocent people detained under similar circumstances?
Lord Elton: I listened with some surprise to the noble Lords who moved and seconded—if that is the right term—the Motion and with some relief to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Clause 40 is the clause which extends the power to detain from 24 hours to 36 hours and immediately afterwards brings it into the purview of the court. So when the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, says, "Here is a secure right which is swept away when you turn the page", he is himself sweeping away the magistrates sitting in court, because he said that it was swept away and the person could be kept in detention for up to 96 hours. I must have misheard him and I shall revert to Clause 40, about which we are supposed to be talking.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I am so sorry, but I thought that we were dealing with Clause 40.
Lord Elton: So did I until I heard what the noble Lord said. He gave us a sort of pastiche of the Bill, saying that every time he found reassurance it was swept away on the next page. His catalogue went on, perhaps unintentionally, beyond Clause 40 to the provisions up to the 96-hour point. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, the fact is that there is a need for police detention, and your Lordships have recently agreed on a Division that there is such a need. The Bill is concerned with the securities that apply to the detention.
The security extends from the moment of arrest. I have already recited it and therefore I shall only recapitulate it very briefly. At every stage there is an increase in the rank, seniority and experience of the person reviewing the question whether the detained person should he longer detained. We start with the custody officer who is a sergeant; we go on very shortly after that to the review officer who (if the person is not already charged) is an inspector; and with Clause 40 we arrive at a superintendent. The questions which the superintendent has to ask before he can authorise continued detention are numerous, pertinent and important, and reference has not been made to them.
The first question is: is this offence for which the person is to be detained a serious, arrestable offence? That brings in all the safeguards which we discussed in that distant first day of the Committee stage. He has to decide before that whether the detention is, in fact, necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which the person is under arrest, and if it is not, then the person has to be released. He has to ask himself whether the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, and if it is not the person has to he released. Only at that stage can he decide that the person should stay from 24 to 36 hours—that is 12 hours longer in which the police can pursue inquiries which may be of an immensely tortuous and difficult nature. Alibis will be produced which will have to be checked, and as we said in an earlier debate confessions may even be entered into which prove to be false, so a person may wrongly admit to a crime which he did not commit and it is necessary to check out that admission in order not to bring the inquiries to what would be an entirely fruitless result.
However, I do not think that I need go on longer because the noble and learned Lord has summed it all up for noble Lords with more authority and more experience than ever I could muster. I think it would blow a hole in this part of the Bill. It would be bad for justice and it would not protect the fundamental rights of the British people. It would merely make it more difficult for the police to bring to book those who so often and so malevolently threaten those rights by criminally assaulting them.
Lord Monson: Could the noble Lord answer my question about the possibility of compensation for innocent people detained for long periods of time and subsequently released?
Lord Elton: The answer is that if the detention has been lawfully carried out then the answer as to whether there would be compensation available must be no. The fact that a person might in the end prove to be innocent does not, I am afraid, entitle him to a cash handout.
10.41 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: The noble Lord the Minister has set out in very reasonable terms what are the safeguards provided by Clause 40. What he has not said in simple terms is what is the point of Clause 40. The reason for that is, I suspect, that if he were to be candid with your Lordships' Committee the reason for Clause 40 is the simple proposition that the longer you can keep a man in custody the more likely he is to crack. That is the simple proposition behind the whole of Clause 40, is it not?
Is it not a fallacy to believe that you are in fact going to get a genuine confession out of somebody if you can keep him in custody for longer and longer periods? The idea that the noble Lord the Minister has put forward that the point of Clause 40 is that you should keep somebody in custody for very long periods in order to be able to prove that his confession is false is standing logic entirely on its head. Is not all experience that the people who will make confessions after being kept in custody for 36, or 48, or 96 hours are not the professional criminals, but the inadequates in a police station who, after being interrogated for hours on end, are going to make confessions which turn out to be totally untrue? In those circumstances is not Clause 40 as it stands going to do far more harm than good?
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is doing me less than justice if he thinks that I am pleading that we should keep people in police custody an extra few hours before they come to the magistrates' courts in order to make them crack. I thought I might have said enough to convince your Lordships but clearly I have not. When you come to the magistrates' courts and the suspect is present with his solicitor, it is necessary to display a good deal of the hand of the investigating police. In some cases that can prejudice the success of the inquiry. There is a use to be had out of the extra hours that Clause 40 permits.
I shall not ask your Lordships to read yet again the provisions of the code of practice for keeping people in detention and the requirement there is for breaks for refreshments, and eight hours' sleep, and all the other conveniences for the suspect. We are not talking about the third degree, and bright lights in the eyes, and saying, "When did you last see your father?" until the person breaks down. We are talking about a carefully controlled process.
But there are other considerations. The requirement to hold an inter partes review at 24 hours would place a substantial new burden on the courts. In only a minority of cases, perhaps a quarter, would the 24-hour point fall when the court is normally sitting. If the police were forced to make applications for warrants for further detention in advance of that point, the total number of applications would be even greater than the 22,000 that the 24-hour point now leads us to suppose there would be. Many cases would undoubtedly arise in which the police, for good reason, would apply for a warrant where a detention without charge for more than 24 hours turned out in the event to be unnecessary.
Nor would these 22,000 extra cases be distributed evenly throughout the country. They would be concentrated in the major towns and cities where pressures on the courts are already substantial. Other

683
cases in the list would have to be delayed at short notice. In many cases expensive special sittings of the courts would have to be arranged.
Those who would actually have to operate these arrangements, the magistrates' and the justices' clerks, have made it clear that large numbers of additional hearings would present substantial difficulties for them. The additional costs would be formidable. The difficulties would be particularly acute where a number of persons have been detained in connection with a single offence, or set of offences, and were all separately represented.
I hope that your Lordships will take due note of the fact that the Magistrates' Association has confirmed its view that the 36-hour review is both the appropriate and the practicable point for the courts to become fully involved in the review of detention. The advancement of the inter panes review would automatically reduce the period under Clauses 54 and 56, for which, exceptionally, delay of notification of arrest would be authorised. I hope your Lordships will also take careful note that it has been accepted by the Criminal Bar Association that on occasions even 36 hours might be too early. The case it had in mind concerned a kidnapping in which it was essential for the victim's safety that the fact that one member of the kidnapping gang had been arrested was not disclosed. The risks would clearly be even greater if the period were reduced to 24 hours.
If the point of application was not 24 but 36 hours as we propose, the numbers of applications would be very considerably reduced. I hope I have shown that we are not proposing this in order to grill people until they break, but to keep them under carefully regulated conditions. We are supported by the Magistrates' Association, the magistrates' clerks and the Criminal Bar Association in what we think to be the right level. I have, as it were, shrugged off the imputation that the noble Lord laid upon me that we were simply wanting to turn the bright lights on the suspect until he broke.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I may follow immediately on the peroration of the noble Lord the Minister. I shall do so with much greater power if he is kind enough to listen to what I have to say.
I start by saying that I do not think this a subject which ought to be dealt with emotionally, although most of us may feel emotions about it. We ought to be able to deal with it rationally and with some clear thought. The noble Lord listed the number of associations in favour of Clause 40. I know how much the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, regards with respect the views of the Law Society, into whose problems he was kind enough to look when he was Master of the Rolls with great assiduity and with a great understanding of its experience.
Let me announce here and now that the Law Society is absolutely against Clause 40. It is against Clause 40 having reviewed the matter in its appropriate committee, which consists of lawyers who are skilled and experienced in matters of criminal law and practice. I am authorised by the Law Society to make that position abundantly clear.
684
I said that we should approach this rationally and I shall try to do it in summarised form. Listening to the noble Lord the Minister—who has a powerful advocacy at his command and I sometimes think he is a great loss to the profession to which I have the honour to belong—one would never believe that as recently as 1980 there was a Magistrates' Courts Act. That Act provided that:
"On a person's being taken into custody for an offence without a warrant, a police officer not below the rank of inspector, or the police officer in charge of the police station to which the person is brought may, and, if it will not be practicable to bring him before a magistrates' court within 24 hours after his being taken into custody, shall, inquire into the case and, unless the offence appears to the officer to be a serious one, grant him bail".
Subsection (4) of that Section 43 reads:
"Where a person is taken into custody for an offence without a warrant and is retained in custody, he shall be brought before a magistrates' court as soon as practicable."
That was in 1980. One would not have thought, having heard the noble Lord the Minister—and, if I may say so with deference, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—that Scotland decided in 1980 that six hours, as we have been reminded many times, was the maximum period for which somebody could be detained.
This section has been looked at by our courts. Again I am dealing with recent history. In 1980 it was looked at in the case of R. v. Hudson. The Court of Appeal held that "as soon as practicable"—those are the words in subsection (4) which I have just mentioned—meant something similar to the 24 hours mentioned in subsection (1). On the facts of that case, they said that the defendant should have been brought before the court at the very least within 48 hours of his arrest. In Rex v. Holmes, which I know my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones quoted because that is the ex parte Sherman and Apps case in 1981, subsection (4), to which I have just referred, was said to be unequivocal and imperative in its terms; and, on the authorities, points unmistakably to a period of 48 hours as being the maximum period of detention, whether that is by the police, by the courts or by anybody else. So that is 1980 and 1981. What has changed?
Lord Elton: I will tell the noble Lord what has changed. What has changed has been the code of conduct. What has changed has been all the rest of the provisions in the Bill. That is what has changed.
Lord Mishcon: When the noble Lord the Minister becomes passionate, I know that I must be right because only the fact that he is in some difficulty would lead such a calm personality into such passionate utterances.
What has changed, we are told, is that we have got a code of practice, and what has changed are the provisions of the Bill. I am not quite sure whether I understand that. Since we are criticising the provisions of the Bill it does not seem to me to be such a magnificent point to say that what has changed are the provisions of the Bill. We are just deciding whether or not the provisions of the Bill should be changed.
What are we really dealing with? We are dealing with 24 hours of detention. Who is the person who can extend it to 36 hours? Not an independent person at

685
all. Still the police—it is the superintendent of police. That is not an independent judgment. It is still the police. Without in any way being in the slightest degree critical of superintendents of police and inspectors of police who, by and large, are the greatest body of people that any police force in the world has—I immediately say that—let us be realistic; what busy superintendent of police is going to say on a report being made to him, "Please, we require up to 36 hours; we have gone for 24. Could you please give us another 12 hours?"—what superintendent of police in what type of case is going to say, "No, I am not satisfied. I disagree with the inspector in charge of the case. Release him at once"?
Let us be realistic. At the end of 24 hours, what is to stop a magistrates' court being able to look at the question of the freedom of the subject? That is what we are talking about. When the noble Lord the Minister starts talking about overcrowding the list and overburdening the magistrates, may I remind him that his own case was that the evidence before the Commission and the evidence before everybody else is that no more than 1,309 suspects were brought during the third quarter of 1982—that is 1.6 per cent. No more than that number were detained for more than 24 hours without charge. What a ridiculously small percentage of cases would come before the magistrates throughout the kingdom if we said, "No more than 24 hours, and it is the courts that must decide if a detention is to last longer than that". Clause 40 does us no credit at all.
Lord Elton: I think the noble Lord was quoting me. If he was quoting me, he was quoting my figures from the Metropolitan Police. The national figures would be about 22,000. That is a crowd on the list.
Lord Mishcon: I am talking about the metropolitan area which we all know is the one, quite obviously, where there is unfortunately, a concentration of crime. I am talking about the concentration. It would not be much for the courts of the metropolis to deal with—I know the noble Lord the Minister was trying to defend areas where there is a pattern of crime, and I was trying to tell him that I thought that that was not a very judicious or a very diplomatic course. But obviously we are talking in terms, throughout the kingdom, of something that would be a very small burden indeed upon the magistrates' courts.
What is the advantage of having revised figures in Clause 40? The advantage is—and I say this quietly and not with the passionate voice of the noble Lord the Minister a moment ago—that what we would be doing is doing our job. For the first time we are making laws in regard to this and getting out of what the Phillips Committee decided was the pretty awful mess of our then laws of detention. We would be acting justly; we would be acting with proper regard to the liberty of the subject. This Chamber has always been a guardian of that liberty. It has the opportunity of doing it now in voting against this clause.
Lord Elton: In reply, I will tell the noble Lord only one thing. When I speak with passion I speak with passion because I believe that I am right. The noble Lord asks your Lordships to bring 22,000 cases into
686
the lists, which are already choked and which already result in people being kept in prison on remand, in custody, for longer than we should wish. He wants to add 22,000 cases to that list and to prejudice the police inquiries by revealing in court the direction of their inquiries twelve hours earlier than necessary, all on the ground that he does not trust police superintendents to use the law as it is set down in Clause 40.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord the Minister is going now from passion to rhetoric, from rhetoric to drama, and from drama to a misrepresentation of what I said, although, I know, innocent—I repeat; although, I know, innocent. The noble Lord the Minister can waggle his head. I said, "although, I know, innocent"; and I have made it perfectly clear that I have nothing but admiration, as have all my noble friends, for the police force and their various officers. I have nothing against the superintendents. I did not suggest that they would break the law. I said that from a practical point of view we all know that it is scarcely likely that, being asked to extend for twelve hours, they would refuse. That is a perfectly human, polite remark to make, and it must not be distorted.
10.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 46.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Greenway, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Avon, E.

Bauer, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bellwin, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Belstead, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lucas, B.

Caithness, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar, C.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Coleraine, L.

Minto, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

De La Warr, E.

Plant, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denning, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Dilhorne, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Donegall, M.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Elton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Faithfull, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ferrier, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gainford, L.

Vickers, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Wise, L.

Glanusk, L.

Wynford, L.

Gowrie, E.

Young, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

687

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

McNair, L.

Attlee, E.

Meston, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bernstein, L.

Monson, L.

Birk, B.

Mulley, L.

Collison, L.

Nichol, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Simon, V.

Foot, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kagan, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 40 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 41 [Warrants of further detention]:
11.6 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 38, line 34, after ("relates") insert—
("(a) has been furnished with a copy of it; and
(b)").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient to your Lordships if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 118. 120, 123 and 127, which appear in my name on the Marshalled List:
Amendment No. 118: Page 38, line 34, at end insert—
("(2A) The person to whom the application relates shall be entitled to be legally represented at the hearing and, if he is not so represented, but wishes to be so represented—

(a) the court shall adjourn the hearing to enable him to obtain representation; and

(b) he may be kept in police detention during the adjournment.").

Amendment No. 120: Page 39, line 34, at end insert—
("(7A) The person to whom the application relates may be kept in police detention during the adjournment.").
Amendment No. 123: Page 41, line 1, leave out subsections (18) and (19).
Amendment No. 127: Page 41, line 28, leave out ("(12), (13), (18) and (19)") and insert ("(2), (2A), (12) and (13)").
All of these are essentially drafting amendments. The purpose is simply to restructure the clause so that it follows more closely the actual sequence of events. The only change of substance occurs in Amendment No. 118. Your Lordships will note that the present subsection. (18)(b), bestows a discretion on the court to adjourn to permit the person to receive legal advice. It has always been our intention that the court should adjourn for this purpose if the detained person wants legal advice but has not yet had the opportunity to receive it. Amendment No. 118 now says precisely this. In such circumstances, the court will be required to adjourn to permit the detained person to obtain legal advice. I hope your Lordships agree that this is a small but important improvement to the clause.
I wonder whether it would be appropriate for me to anticipate Amendments Nos. 121C and 124.
Amendment No. 121C: Page 40, line 10, leave out ("be on oath and shall").
Amendment No. 124: Page 41, line 4, after ("copy") insert ("of the information submitted in support of the application').
I believe that they both have merit and I should like to undertake to bring forward further amendments at a later stage to deal with them. I do not intend to surprise the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, by saying this, but they are grouped and they strike at the same part of the Bill. Furthermore, the noble Lord is after the same objective as are the Government
Lord Mishcon: That is very helpful. I believe that the noble Lord knows, although I should like to make it clear, that these are amendments recommended by the Law Society. I am delighted that the noble Lord feels that they are worthy of his consideration and that they may be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 38, line 34, at end insert—
(" (2A) The person to whom the application relates shall be entitled to be legally represented at the hearing and, if he is not so represented, but wishes to be so represented—

(a) the court shall adjourn the hearing to enable him to obtain representation; and

(b) he may be kept in police detention during the adjournment.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 119, 119A, 119B, 119C, 119D and 119E not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 39, line 34, at end insert—
("(7A) The person to whom the application relates may be kept in police detention during the adjournment.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120A not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 40, line 2, leave out from ("hours") to end of subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 125, 126, 121A and 121B.
Amendment No. 125: Clause 42, page 41, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("if") in line 18 and insert—
("(1) On an application made by a constable and supported by an information a magistrates' court may extend a warrant of further detention issued under section 41 above").
Amendment No. 126: Page 41, line 20, leave out from ("justified") to ("shall") in line 22 and insert—
("(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) below, the period for which a warrant of further detention may be extended shall be such period as the court thinks fit, having regard to the evidence before it.
(2B) The period").
Amendment No. 121A: Clause 41, page 40, line 3, leave out ("96") and insert ("48").
Amendment No. 121B: Page 40, line 3, leave out ("96") and insert ("72").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I should point out that if Amendment No. 121 is agreed to, then the Chair will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 121A or 121B.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. The Committee will realise that other noble Lords will be speaking also to amendments which touch the same part of the Bill—and it is a central and important part. The Bill imposes a general limit on detention without charge of 96 hours. In certain circumstances, where a person is arrested in one part of the country and has to be transferred to another, the total time in police custody may exceed that figure; I shall deal with that point in a moment. But the introduction into law of an overall limit is a new safeguard against unnecessarily prolonged detention. It introduces certainty into an area of the law which the courts themselves have held stands badly in need of clarification.
Why 96 hours? Any figure is arbitrary to a certain extent, but our position, unlike that of the Royal Commission, was that there must be a concrete starting point and there must be some time limit on the power of the courts to extend police detention.
We considered that a scheme of detention that was open-ended—as the Royal Commission proposed—would not command public confidence. We chose 96 hours after considering the practical experience of the police and Customs and Excise in dealing with complicated and difficult cases involving major crime. We looked at cases in which prolonged detention had occurred and posed the questions; Could the investigation have been concluded more quickly? If so, how? We satisfied ourselves that in some cases, 96 hours would be necessary and we provided for that in the Bill accordingly.
On Report in another place, the Government's amendments were accepted, which limited the length of time for which any individual warrant or extension of a warrant could authorise detention to 36 hours. All the amendments I now move are consequential to those changes. The first removes superfluous words from subsection (10). The latest time a warrant may be issued is, by virtue of subsection (4), 42 hours after detention commences. The warrant may authorise detention for at most a further 36 hours. The Committee will see that such a warrant cannot therefore authorise a period ending later than 96 hours, and subsection (10)(b) is not needed. Similarly, all warrants issued under Clause 41 will necessarily expire less than 96 hours after the relevant time. Amendment No. 125 merely reflects this, while Amendment No. 126 improves the drafting of subsection (2).
If my Amendment No. 121 is accepted, I understand that Amendments Nos. 121A and 121B may not be called. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will inform us whether he wishes to debate these amendments now or leave the points to be raised on the Question whether Clause 42 shall stand part. For the present, I simply beg to move my own amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I think that the latter course suggested by the Minister is the sensible one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 121A and 121B not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 121C:
[Printed earlier: col. 687.]
The noble Lord said: In view of what the noble Lord the Minister was good enough to say, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 121C not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 40, line 13, leave out ("grounds") and insert ("general nature of the evidence").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (12) specifies the information which must be given by the police in support of an application for a warrant of further detention. Among these, paragraph (b) mentions, "the grounds on which that person was arrested". On reflection, we consider that this left matters too vague. This amendment will replace it by "the general nature of the evidence on which that person was arrested". I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a better and more precise indication of the evidence which must be adduced in support of an application. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 122A and 122B not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 123:
[Printed earlier: col. 687.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 117. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 124 in consequence falls. I should perhaps explain that if Amendment No. 123 is agreed to I am unable to call Amendment No. 124. I cannot call Amendment No. 124.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Extension of warrants of further detention]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 125 and 126.
[Printed earlier: col. 688.]
Lord Elton: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 with Amendment No. 121. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 127:
[Printed earlier: col. 687.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 117. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 42, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: I promise the Committee to be very short in regard to this and I especially did not speak on Clause 41 stand part because I thought it much more sensible and I know the noble Lord the Minister will allow me to deal with the essential points of Clauses 41

691
and 42 together. The whole point of our submission is that these periods are too long; that it is unnecessary to have as long a period as 96 hours; that the maximum should be 72 hours, and your Lordships have already heard the view that we have endeavoured to place before the Committee about the necessity of the courts coming into the matter at the end of 24 hours. On that latter point, your Lordships have divided.
I merely want to record our point of view. I have an idea that at this time of night it would not be very sensible to take this matter further, having had the debates we have, but the Committee will now be well aware of the view that we take of these provisions of the Bill. We accept them in principle. We think that the detail is wrong and it is a very important detail in regard to the number of hours.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I ask the Minister one question without taking up any more time, other than to say that we support what has just been said here? The question I want to ask arises from an article which appeared in The Times last Thursday, written by the Minister in another place, which was entitled, "Why we are sticking on 96", possibly a rather ill-advised article. What he said there is this:
"What happens in a long investigation? The police will certainly not put questions again and again until the suspect is prepared to make an admission, true or false. The Bill's procedures will simply not allow this. Any questioning after he has been brought before a court will require his cooperation. He will have an absolute right to see a solicitor, and to have him present during questioning".
Can the Minister explain, if that is what is so proudly being put forward for the last hours of interrogation from 24 to 96 hours, why the same privilege is not given to the person being interrogated during the first 24 hours?
Lord Denning: I say only one thing. In the case to which I referred earlier—that of Houghton—it was very nearly 96 hours. Unless there had been 96 hours there would not have been any ascertainment of the criminal or his eventual sentence. The 96 hours would seem to be about right.
Lord Elton: That is a sufficient answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is a very interesting remark and we are all glad to have heard it, but is has nothing to do with the question asked by my noble friend.
Lord Elton: There are two issues here. One is whether 96 hours is too long and the other is whether there should be an application to the courts at 24 hours rather than 36, if I understood the noble Lord—
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Lord the Minister has not understood. What has been said in the article is that during the period from 24 hours to 96 hours the person being interrogated will have the presence of a solicitor as of right and, therefore, the idea that he will be questioned over and over again in order to get a confession out of him is entirely misplaced. All I am asking is, if that is his absolute
692
right for the last 48 hours of his interrogation, why should it not be an absolute right during the first 24 hours?
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord for penetrating the obscurity which gradually descends around me at about this time of night. I reply to the noble Lord first—although he was not first to the box, as it were—by repeating what I said earlier. There are serious considerations why it may not be desirable to have a solicitor brought in to a suspect at an earlier stage. The mere fact of his arrival in the station and talking to the suspect may in itself be a signal which vitiates any further inquiries by the police and may, in fact, have very serious consequences—for instance, for a kidnapped victim. It is that sort of situation we wish to guard against. We think that it is necessary to provide 36 hours for that sort of situation to be met. If it cannot be met in that time then there is very great trouble, but we believe that there should be a safeguard at a fixed point. That is brought in at 36 hours when we also bring in the magistrates.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, looks as though he wants me to go on with that point. I was about to go on to the next point about the 96 hours, but does the noble Lord wish to raise a point about the solicitors?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As the noble Lord knows the Bill and the amendments so well he will realise that there is Amendment No. 146 which is our attempt to deal with this situation.
Lord Elton: I would rather not try to take that on board at this stage. Coming to the 96 hours, it was really for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I thought that the noble and learned Lord had provided a sufficient answer. I have a series of cases noted here of investigations which have taken considerable periods—some of them over 96 hours—but we think there should be an absolute limit and 96 hours captures virtually the whole range.
There are serious, complicated, conspiratorial offences, offences involving large numbers of people and movements over large distances and cases involving forensic inquiries which could not be properly disposed of in a lesser time, and it is for that reason that we have gone to that point.
I detect from what the noble Lord has said that he is merely putting a marker on the record, and I suspect that he will deploy his artillery at a later engagement. I think I shall reserve my fire for that occasion, too.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that all the Members of the Committee will be relieved to hear that the fire is being reserved until the next occasion and will not go off at the present moment. Having said that, may I add a sentence? I know that the Government always feel that in their pursuit of these matters, and especially of what they call law and order—although there is no difference between us on the necessity to keep law and order—they are following public opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to a recent article in The Times. May I refer the noble Lord the Minister to the Sunday Times of 8th January 1984? It recorded a recent MORI poll which showed that 65 per cent. of

693
those questioned said that the police should not be able to detain suspects for more than 24 hours without charging them. As I know that the noble Lord always has regard for public opinion, will he between now and the Report stage meditate upon what I have said?
Lord Elton: It is not altogether necessary, because I have meditated already. I have reflected on the questions that were asked of the people who gave the answers to which the noble Lord has referred. If he reads those questions, I think he will agree with me that perhaps the figure is not such a condemnation of Government policy as he might care to say. I have all this written out at much greater length, and I have the reference here, but I shall not refer to it.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Detention before charge—supplementary]:
11.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 41, line 31, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("sections 41 and 42").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon a previous amendment that I moved. I can deal with it very quickly indeed. In Clause 43(1) "magistrates' court" is defined for that part of the Bill. In fact, that definition does not apply to Clauses 44 and 47, and it is thought that the provision should restrict that definition of "magistrates' court" to Clauses 41 and 42.
Clause 43(2) provides:
"Any reference … to a period of time or a time of day is to be treated as approximate only";
and one asks what that means. In Clause 44(2) an obligation is placed upon the police to bring a detainee, after his having been charged, to court,
"not later than the first sitting after he is charged with the offence".
The first sitting could be a domestic or juvenile court. We assume that what is intended is that in that event the bench should reconstitute itself as an adult court.
I move this amendment as a probing amendment to obtain answers to those questions. I do not think it fair to ask the noble Lord the Minister to answer them now. As it is only a probing amendment, perhaps the most convenient course is that the Minister, having read what I have said in Hansard, may decide to write to me. On the other hand, he may do nothing of the kind and he may accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord must begin to get the message that those amendments which we are prepared to accept are those which he puts forward in the most hesitating, timorous and temporising manner. I am perfectly happy with this. There is no need for him to make excuses. We will accept it.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful. The only point is, I get so nervous when the noble Lord the Minister does something exceptional. The moment the message came over that he was going to accept it, it put me into a great nervous tension.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Detention after charge]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 42, line 2, leave out ("36(6)") and insert ("36(7)").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton I beg to move Amendment No. 128. This amendment will correct a misprint in the Bill. If the Committee will refer back to Clause 36, on page 31, they will see that it is subsection (7) and not subsection (6) which makes provision for the transfer of juveniles to the care of the local authority. The amendment changes the reference to that subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Bail after arrest]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 128A:
Page 44, leave out lines 21 to 39 and insert—
(" (a) where the person arrested is to be released on bail on his entering into a recognizance without sureties, it shall not be necessary to take him to a police station, but if he is so taken, he shall be released from custody on his entering into the recognizance; and
(b) where he is to be released on his entering into a recognizance with sureties, he shall be taken to a police station on his arrest, and the custody officer there shall (subject to his approving any surety tendered in compliance with the endorsement) release him from custody as directed in the endorsement.")
The noble Baroness said: Subsection 8(b) amends Section 117 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, to permit what is known as doorstep bail. At present, if a magistrate issues a warrant for a person's arrest, which is endorsed for bail, the constable executing the warrant is required by Section 117(3) of the 1980 Act to take the person to a police station before bail can be granted and he can be released. This is inconvenient for both the person named in the warrant and the constable executing it. Clause 45 replaces Section 117(3) with a provision which permits the police officer executing the warrant to grant bail on his own authority without taking the person to a police station if the bail does not involve sureties.
Where sureties are involved, it is desirable that the person should continue to be taken to the police station so that prospective sureties can be contacted and their suitability assessed. However, in a straightforward case where a person is granted bail on his own recognisance there is no reason why this matter cannot be dealt with on the person's own doorstep, hence the term "doorstep bail". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Remands to police custody]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 128AA:
Page 45, line 8, at end insert ("and he shall not be questioned by police while in such detention unless an application to do so has been granted by the Magistrates' Court.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 46 amends Section 128(7) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. That act gives a magistrates' court power to remand a person into the custody of a constable for a period not exceeding three clear days, which really means five days in all. The amendments made to Section 128 by this clause have the effect of limiting that section by specifying that the purpose of such detention by the police is for the purpose of inquiries into other offences. The police's responsibility in relation to detained persons will also apply to a person detained following a remand into police custody by the magistrates' court, though there is to be no periodic review by the magistrates' court.
There is a danger that in the event of a holding charge being preferred, the defendant could be brought before the magistrates' court at, say, 26, 48 or 60 hours and remanded into police custody for three clear days. Thus could the detention limits and 36- to 72-hour reviews by the magistrates' court be circumvented.
It is not the fact that we seek the removal of this power, because in some parts of the country and, I am told, especially in Yorkshire, the opportunity afforded by local detention following the first appearance is used for solicitors to take instructions from the defendant. However, the power clearly needs hedging about in order to avoid the possibility of abuse such as that to which I have referred. We suggest that since the court has given the defendant into police detention, the court shall have to give its permission for any police questioning at this stage, and the role of the court would therefore be no less than it is before charge. It is on this that the amendment is based. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The provision in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 allowing three-day remands to police custody is of great help to the police in facilitating the investigation by the police of further offences thought to have been committed by a person charged with an offence, and frequent use is made of the provision by the courts in appropriately serious cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has mentioned.
I understand the concern that has been expressed about the possibility that the provision might allow the police to circumvent the limits on detention contained in the Bill, but I would suggest that this concern arises from a misunderstanding of the purpose of those limits. The time limits on detention before charge are intended to ensure that a person who would otherwise be at liberty is not detained indefinitely by the police for the purposes of an investigation. Different considerations altogether apply once a person has already been charged with an offence brought before a court in accordance with Clause 44 and the court decides to withhold bail. In such a situation, the only question is whether he is to he remanded to prison custody or police custody.
Once the decision to withhold bail has been made—and it is of course made according to the criteria contained in the Bail Act 1976 and not by reference to the provisions of this Bill—I really do not see why the court should not be able to remand the person to police custody, rather than to prison, if it is
696
considered that this is needed for the investigation of other offences. No issue about time limits on detention arises, because if he spent three months in prison on remand, he could be in custody for that period without being charged with the further offences which the police were investigating. If the court does remand to police custody, this will be to assist in the investigation of other offences. Thus, any application to be permitted to question the prisoner would be automatically granted. A remand to police custody implies that the court considers questioning is necessary. I therefore see no reason to add the provision suggested by the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the noble Baroness would agree that if the application would automatically be granted, there would be no harm in conceding the amendment. However, in view of the fact that she appears to have taken a line at the moment that the amendment is not necessary, I wonder whether I can ask her to review again what I have said, based on information and briefing given to me by the Law Society. I hope that she will at least look at the matter again so that we may avoid possibly having to deal with it next time.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord and the Law Society do not dispute the fact that the facility for remands to police custody is still in common use, and is very useful to the police in appropriate cases. Clause 46 builds new safeguards and protections into the procedure. I cannot advise the Committee to accept an amendment which would in practice add nothing to those safeguards but would merely increase the attendant bureaucracy. The amendment would indeed be very odd because the police would not need the court's consent to question the person if he were remanded to prison rather than police custody. I see no reason for such an anomaly, and I therefore cannot advise your Lordships to accept this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I asked the noble Baroness whether she was prepared to consider what had been said which she may not have realised beforehand, in view of the fact that I was representing the views of the Law Society. If she will kindly intimate that consideration will be given to my remarks, I shall take a certain course.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall kindly intimate.
Lord Mishcon: It is kindly accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Abolition of certain powers of constables to search persons]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne) moved Amendment No. 128B:
Page 47, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below,").
The noble Lord said: I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 128D:
Amendment No. 128D: Page 47, line 25, at end insert—
("() Nothing in subsection (1)(a) above shall affect paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 3 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.").
Clause 51 repeals all provisions in existing enactments and abolishes all common law rules authorising the search of a person by a constable at a police station. The effect of these two amendments is to make a saving for the power of search in paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 3 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 in so far as that power may be exercised at a police station. No comparable power is available, I am told, under the provisions of Clauses 52 and 53. With that short explanation, I hope that your Lordships will see fit to agree to these two amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 128B.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 128C:
Page 47, line 21, leave out ("of a person by a constable") and insert ("by a constable of a person in police detention").
The noble Lord said: This amendment limits to the case of persons in police detention the repeal of existing powers to search persons at police stations. The purpose of Clause 51 was to make it clear that all searches of persons detained at police stations would in future have to be conducted under either Clause 52 or, exceptionally, Clause 53. The particular purpose of paragraph (a) was to make it clear that Clause 52 replaced the powers of the police to search detained persons under common law. However, I am afraid that we have now realised that the terms of paragraph (a) are a little too sweeping. As drafted, the paragraph precludes the use of powers of stop and search at police stations.
However, this was never the intention. Indeed, since Clause 2(9) imposes new restrictions on the removal of clothing in public it may be that from time to time, if a person is thought to be carrying, say, drugs, and the police officer considers it necessary to remove the person's headgear for the purpose of a search, the nearby police station is the best place for this to be done. This amendment will permit this by making it clear that the powers to search conferred by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and other, similar legislation are repealed, so far as police station searches are concerned, only in the case of a person in police detention at the police station; that is to say, a person who has already been arrested. I hope your Lordships will see fit to agree to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 128D:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Searches of detained persons]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 128E:
Page 47, line 37, leave out from ("officer") to ("and") in line 38
698
and insert ("has authorised his detention and has reasonable grounds for believing that a search—

(a) will produce evidence relevant to the offence for which the person is detained; or

(b) is necessary to establish that the person does not have on him any article which could be used to cause injury to himself or others or which he might use to assist him to escape from police detention")

The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 52 deals with searches of detained persons. As it stands at present, the formulation in the Bill would enable a search of a person to be carried out for administrative purposes, so that the police could have a complete list of the suspect's property. It is suggested that that process may be necessary to avoid allegations of police planting, but we are not satisfied or clear that the effect of the draft, as it stands, would achieve this purpose.
The amendment which I move would restrict police searches, first, to cases where detention has been authorised; secondly, to cases where evidence of the existence of either weapons or articles useful for escape are reasonably believed by the police to be on the person. This is more or less the common law position at the moment; that is to say, a power to search where it is necessary for reasons related to the investigation or to a person's safety. It is a reasonable amendment which I hope the Minister will accept. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Subsection (2) permits a person brought to a police station under arrest to be searched to the extent that the custody officer considers necessary to enable him to ascertain the property the person has on him. This amendment would narrow the scope of this power and also seek to base it upon an objective test. May I deal with that point first? In our view the correct test in these circumstances is the bona fides of the custody officer's belief rather than the existence of reasonable grounds. We are fully aware that the Bill modifies the present common law in this respect, as the note on the clause explains.
When a person is brought to a police station under arrest it would be most unlikely that the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that he has on him any specific article. The custody officer may well never have seen him before and know only what the arresting officer has told him. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord will confirm from his own practical experience, the standard practice is for the custody officer to ask him to empty his pockets so that a record can be made of his property. A search does not necessarily take place and, indeed, the draft code of practice provides new safeguards against unnecessary strip searches.
As the note on the clause explains, we take the view that it is essential for the custody officer to know what property a person has on or with him from the outset, and that while in some circumstances he may not consider that a full search is necessary, he should have the discretion to order a search on the basis of something less than reasonable grounds. The situation is, therefore, quite different from a stop-and-search under Clause 1 where reasonable grounds are an essential safeguard. In this situation, where the police have a clear responsibility to guard the person and for his well being, a lesser test is appropriate.
There have been too many cases where evidence has been secreted and too many cases where detained

699
persons have injured themselves or attacked officers for us to seek to limit the ability of the police to search those in their care and custody. The present common law, which requires the existence of reasonable grounds related to the likelihood that a person is concealing articles which would constitute evidence or be used as weapons, imposes too severe a test for custody officers, particularly custody officers at busy police stations at busy periods. It is not, I think, observed in practice for very good reasons. The police will err on the side of caution by searching, and rightly so. They will be all too well aware of cases in which articles have been found taped to the body or hidden between the toes or stitched to clothing. The restrictions on intimate search contained in Clause 53 make it all the more important that the discretion to search under Clause 52 is not impaired. I hope that, with those considerations in mind, the noble and learned Lord will see fit not to press his amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: At this hour I do not wish to press the amendment. I shall examine carefully what the noble Lord has said. There ought to be as many reasonable limits as are possible to limit searches of a person, whether in custody or not. I had hoped that our sensible amendment would meet the real needs of the situation. But we shall look at it again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 48, line 18, after ("effects") insert ("including watches and spectacles").
The noble Lord said: We understand that it is not uncommon for police in circumstances of this nature to take away watches and spectacles. Subsection (7) says:
"A custody officer may only retain clothes and personal effects under this section—
(a) if the believes that they may be used by the person arrested—

(i) to cause physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii) to damage property;

(iii) to interfere with evidence; or

(iv) to assist him to escape from police detention".

We want to include watches and spectacles so that every police constable knows that he has no right to take the spectacles or watch from a man or woman unless there is a specific way in which that man or woman might do damage to himself or herself or fall within the other categories given here.
The truth is that a person—a man or woman—who wears spectacles, as many of us do, knows how dependent he is on them, and it is a deliberate cruelty to take them away without a proper reason. We would not have put this amendment down if we had not heard that it was frequently done. This is not first-hand knowledge—it is entirely secondhand. But if it is frequently done, it ought not to be done. If we put these words into the clause the police constable or the police officer will have to make it perfectly clear how a man's spectacles were going to be used dangerously or how a man's wrist watch was going to be used as an offensive weapon. I think that this should have some effect on stopping the malpractice. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, subsection (7) of this clause sets out the criteria that must be satisfied before the custody officer may retain the clothes and personal effects of a person detained at a police station. The subsection makes it clear that such articles may not be taken and withheld from a detained person as a matter of routine, still less as a kind of punishment. I am sure that your Lordships' Committee will readily recognise however that the police frequently have to deal with dangerous or disturbed individuals who simply cannot be allowed to keep potential weapons with them when they are placed in cells.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord would introduce a specific reference to watches and spectacles into this subsection. I appreciate the underlying concern of the noble Lord, and I agree with him that watches and spectacles should not be taken from a detained person except in the circumstances envisaged in the subsection. The need for spectacles is obvious; watches too take on a new importance as a result of the system of timed reviews of and time limits on detention introduced in Part IV of the Bill. The codes of practice too are concerned with timings—of meal breaks, refreshment breaks, and so on. The Philips Royal Commission themselves made a point of noting that other than in exceptional circumstances a person should not be deprived of this watch. However, I hope to persuade the noble Lord that such articles are already covered by the present wording of the subsection and that his amendment is therefore not needed.
Watches and spectacles are pre-eminently "personal effects". If I were asked to give an example of what was meant by the expression "personal effects", watches and spectacles would be among the first articles to come to mind. It would of course be possible to include in Clause 52—or perhaps more appropriately in the detention code of practice—a specific reference to watches and spectacles, as has been proposed. But would this not raise the question of other kinds of articles? Should there not then be a specific reference to hearing aids, wedding rings, worry beads, rosaries, and a wide range of other items? I believe that once one starts trying to mention particular articles it becomes very difficult to know where to stop. For this reason I hope that the noble Lord will, on reflection, accept that there is little, if anything, to be gained by amplifying the reference to "personal effects" in the way he has proposed, but perhaps something to be lost in terms of brevity and clarity. In view of my assurance that watches and spectacles are personal effects, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is perfectly clear that watches and spectacles are personal effects; it is perfectly clear that they are covered by this clause. So far as I know, this clause has not existed until now, but there seems to be no doubt that this is something which is done on many occasions when it ought not to be done. I believe that it is important to overstate rather than to understate it in order to stop a malpractice. I shall go back and look at the evidence which, on the whole, as we have heard, is all over the place. Some

701
of it may be refutable. However, if it is true that this has been done frequently without reason—and I believe that that is the case—then I think that I shall have to return to it on Report, because I do not think that the matter should be left. It is a means of persecution and it is not fair to leave means of persecution in the hands of people who may abuse them. This applies not only to the police but to anybody else anywhere. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I reserve the right to come back on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.54 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 48, line 19, leave out ("believes") and insert ("has reasonable grounds for believing").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled this amendment because I am simply wondering why subsection (7)(a) uses a different expression from the one which is used elsewhere in the Bill in relation to matters of this sort. We think that the subsection should read:
"if he has reasonable grounds for believing",
which is the normal phrase used in the previous clause, to which we spoke earlier, and throughout the Bill. The phrase "if he believes" seems to be slightly weaker. This is only a verbal question and I have no desire to press the amendment, but I should like the noble Lord to look at this. In this Bill it is unusual to use "believes" instead of "has reasonable grounds to believe". I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I am prepared to make a long speech advising the noble Lord not to press this amendment, but perhaps I could just rely on a little personal experience in this matter. As the noble Lord will recall, I had some responsibility for deranged people when I was at the Department of Health—and indeed the affairs of one or two deranged soldiers come across my desk from time to time. I think that these are proper provisions. However, I am prepared to consider the matter further if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. If there is anything I can add I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 130ZA:
Page 48, line 28, at end insert—
("() (a) The clothing of an arrested juvenile may only be removed without the appropriate consent if an officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it.
(b) An officer may give an authorisation under paragraph (a) above if he has grounds for believing that the arrested juvenile may have concealed on himself an article which:

(i) could be used to cause physical injury to himself or others; or

(ii) might be evidence of the offence for which he has been arrested.

(c) The clothing of an arrested juvenile may only be removed in the presence of a person required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act, or in their absence, another adult who is not a police officer, save where the arrested juvenile specifically requests that this be done in private.")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that a juvenile can be strip searched only in exceptional circumstances. It also requires that an officer of the rank of superintendent should authorise the strip search in the cases of appropriate consent being withheld. Such authorisation should only be given where there are grounds for believing that the juvenile has concealed on himself articles which could cause physical injury to himself or others, or might be evidence of the offence. The amendment also requires the presence of an adult other than a police officer unless the young person asks that this should not be so.
I have already spoken about the general principle of ensuring the presence of an adult at a police station in the case of young offenders, and in this case such a presence seems even more necessary as a safeguard from abuse of this power. There have been cases reliably reported that strip searches have been used as a way of humiliating and harassing young people. Through making such searches possible only in exceptional circumstances, or in the presence of an independent grown up, then the risk of offending and alienating young people who have been brought in only on suspicion would be avoided. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Baroness may not be surprised to hear that this amendment presents us with some difficulties. I share the noble Baroness's concern that the protection given to juveniles in police custody should be increased, and in various ways the Bill and its codes of practice all achieve this. But I cannot commend the amendment. It is not only impracticable but also unnecessary. It is impracticable because it would require the authority of a superintendent before clothing could be removed. There would have to be a superintendent permanently on duty at each police station in the country on hand to endorse the custody officer's decision to get a 16 year-old to take his jacket off, for example. Whether or not a search is necessary, and if so how thorough it should be, are bread and butter decisions for the custody officer and are properly his responsibility.
It is only when the question of an intimate search arises that a superintendent needs to be consulted and the Bill draws the line there for reasons which are obvious. The amendment is also impracticable in requiring a search involving the removal of clothing to take place only in the presence of a parent or other responsible adult unless the juvenile concerned asks otherwise. Clause 55 of the Bill, and paragraph 3.6 of the latest draft of the code of practice for the detention of persons by the police, require the parent or guardian of an arrested juvenile to be informed as soon as practicable of his detention and asked to come to the police station.
However, it may take some time for them to arrive and we also know that the police quite frequently find that the parents are out working or adopt, I am sorry to say, a "couldn't care less" attitude and refuse to come to the police station. The police would then have to get in touch with the social services department or some other responsible adult.
All of this takes time. We cannot, for example, expect the police to refrain from searching a juvenile

703
with a record of violence, and known to have a habit of carrying a knife, until an independent adult can be found. Perhaps I have said enough to explain some of the difficulties. I could go on longer but I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The amendment includes a provision that juveniles should be strip searched in exceptional circumstances, and they would be if the police suspected that they were carrying something, or that they were guilty of some previous crime. The rest of what the Minister said just showed that it would take rather a lot of trouble and it would not be very convenient. I feel that this is a bad reason for not taking a great deal of care and keeping those young people, who are not guilty of any offence but who are drawn in through the extra powers in this Bill, out of a police station. It is disappointing that the noble Lord has this negative approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and we shall think about it before Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 130ZB:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Information to he provided to persons in police detention.
.When the custody officer authorises a person who has not been charged to be kept in police detention in accordance with section 35 he shall inform the person both orally and in writing—

(a) that he is entitled to refuse to answer any questions which are put to him;

(b) that he is entitled to have someone notified of his arrest in accordance with section 54 below: and

(c) that he is entitled to consult privately with a solicitor in accordance with section 56 below and to be accompanied by a solicitor during all police questioning.")

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment and speak also to Amendments Nos. 143 and 143A:
Amendment No. 143: page 52, line 38, after ("be") insert ("informed at once that he is")
Amendment No. 143A: page 52, line 39, at end insert—
("() It shall be the duty of the custody officer to inform a person of his rights under this section, both orally and in writing, at the time that he authorises the person's detention in police custody.")
Briefly, and before the noble Lord the Minister tells us, may I say that these provisions are all in the code of practice; indeed, at paragraphs 3.2 and 11. All we are saying is what we have said before, namely, that these matters are so vital for the suspect to know about in relation to his rights that it is our view that these matters should be in the Bill and not in any code of practice. That succinctly puts the point. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has said, in effect, that what he said was right. I can only repeat what I said before, that what he said then was wrong. I have here a fairly impressive series of arguments. I will condense them. I will remind the noble Lord that police officers will disregard the requirements of the code at their peril because of Clause 64(7). I will remind the noble Lord that the approach adopted by the Government is almost exactly that proposed by the Royal Commission. I quote from paragraph 4.116:
"It will be necessary to use primary legislation for certain purposes, for example to alter the laws on evidence to effect the
704
change we propose in respect of the voluntariness rule and some of the proposals that we shall be developing later in this section on how evidence obtained in breach of the rules is to be treated".
But the report goes on to say:
"The rules which will regulate the facilities to be provided for and the treatment to be accorded to suspects in custody and the code of practice which will govern the conduct and recording of interviews should be contained in subordinate legislation".
There is an air of familiarity about that. I recall that I have reminded your Lordships of it before. I see no purpose in repeating it. We both have our positions on the record. I am quite sure that ours is the right one.
Lord Mishcon: May I say, most modestly, that we are equally sure that ours is the right one. There is no point in repeating all the arguments. They have been advanced before; they are on the record and I think at this stage, therefore, the sensible thing for me to do is to ask for leave to withdraw. The noble Lord the Minister knows our views perfectly well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Intimate searches]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 130ZC:
Page 49, line 5, leave out from ("person") to ("may") in line 6 and insert ("whose detention in police custody has been authorised by the custody officer").
The noble Lord said: I should be grateful if with this I could speak to Amendments Nos. 132A and 136A:
Amendment No. 132A: page 49, line 11, at end insert—
("() An intimate search of a person in police detention may be conducted only—

(a) if it has been authorised in accordance with subsection (1) above: and

(b) if the appropriate consent is given.")

Amendment No. 136A: page 49, line 18, leave out from ("practitioner") to end of line 23.
The effect of amendment No. 130ZC would bring the Bill into line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission at paragraph 3.116 by requiring that the proper order should be, first, to decide whether or not there are grounds for detaining the person and, then, to decide whether an intimate search should he carried out. To do it in the other order smacks of Alice in Wonderland—sentence first and verdict thereafter.
The last two amendments would remove the most objectionable features of the clause, as we see it, namely, that it enables intimate searches of the most private body orifices to be conducted against a person's will by a non-medically qualified constable, who, under Clause 110, would have the right to use reasonable force in that exercise.
Lord Elton: I think it might save time later, although it may appear to waste it now, if I asked the noble Lord to stick to Amendment No. 130ZC, because we shall have quite separate debates on Amendments Nos. 132A and 136A and I shall be giving quite different answers to them.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Certainly I accept that. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Speaking only to Amendment No. 130ZC, I can tell the noble Lord that we accept the principle of this amendment. We believe that the right way to meet the point is by an adjustment to the definition of "police detention" in Clause 111 to incorporate the notion that such detention must have been duly authorised in accordance with Part IV of the Bill. This same point arises in relation to a number of the other clauses in Part V and we shall arrange to make these amendments at a later stage. We are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it to our attention.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Since I assume, there-fore, that it is not the amendment in its present form that will be accepted but the spirit of it, I am happy indeed, in those circumstances, to beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Plant Lord Plant moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 49, line 9, after ("court") insert ("or which may be evidence of a serious arrestable offence committed by him or another person").
The noble Lord said: I have this amendment down, No. 130A, and I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has put down Amendment No. 131. I am in some difficulty because I naturally support the amendment of the noble Baroness as well as my own. If I thought that the amendment of the noble Baroness was going to have greater success than mine, I would naturally withdraw mine, but I have had no reaction from the Government Front Bench. I think I ought to probe the Government by moving my amendment. If it is lost, I shall certainly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
We must consider an amendment to this clause to permit the police to search for evidence. The Bill allows an intimate search only for weapons or articles which could be used to cause physical injury, but if in the course of such a search some article of evidence is found, it may be seized. That is clearly inconsistent. Police experience teaches us that the variety of articles retrieved in the past from body orifices is legion, and to mention them all would be repetitious.
The use of body orifices as a place of concealment of incriminating evidence is more common than the general public may realise. A recent random sample among some provincial police forces during 1982 and 1983 revealed that more than 100 articles were removed from body orifices; articles as diverse as drugs, £200 in notes, a radio transmitter, explosives and a detonator. Another fear of the police service is that, on the passage of the Bill, it will very rapidly become common knowledge among the criminal fraternity that there are no powers of intimate search and body orifices will undoubtedly become a more common hiding place.
The need to conduct intimate searches, which the police accept, as so many others, is distasteful, is essential in combating ingenious and inventive criminals. Under the Bill as it is now presented, the following scenario is possible. A valuable jewel is stolen and is secreted in a body orifice by the thief. He is subsequently arrested on suspicion of theft and he
706
says, "I stole it. I have it in my body. You can't search for it, and I shall deny that I ever said this." There is no evidence and the thief walks free under the Bill as it is worded at the moment.
My amendment would go some way towards putting this right. Some of these arguments did not find favour in another place, although the cynics might say that the argument was won but the vote was lost. Since that time, an amendment to Clause 2 to include "hat" under stop and search procedures has also not found favour. The importance of the rejection of these two amendments cannot be too strongly emphasised. The effect of the Bill as it stands can in all truth cause it in some places to be labelled the "drug pushers' charter".
I will not now develop all the difficulties about drugs, the entry of drugs into this country, the pushing of drugs and the evil people who do it. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, would put this much more ably than I can.
Another vital aspect of the powers of intimate search which cannot be overlooked is the deterrent effect. The fact that it may be exercised is sufficient in the vast majority of cases to cause the offender to disgorge the articles. This is a very recent case. A female member of a professional team of jewel thieves operating in the West Country was arrested with her male companions after the theft of valuable jewellery. The stolen items were not on the persons of any of them. After certain enquiries, a detective told the woman that he believed she had secreted rings in her vagina and that he was making arrangements for a woman police officer to conduct a search. Almost immediately, two valuable rings were removed by the woman thief.
This is by no means a unique example and it shows the deterrent effect of the power of the police to authorise intimate searches. The police service urges strongly that your Lordships have a clear duty to the law-abiding public of this country to make the power available for intimate searches to be made in closely controlled circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who has fully explained the reasons for this amendment. It seems to me that the clause as it stands misses a necessary opportunity and I do hope that what the noble Lord has said will be heeded. While I am on my feet, I should like also to say that I think the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has a great deal to commend it.
12.12 a.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: It might be useful for the Committee if I perhaps spoke to my amendment now, and then we could hear what the Minister has to say and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, will know what to do. I speak to Amendment No. 131:
Page 49, line 9, after ("court") insert ("or that he may have concealed on him controlled drugs")
Clause 53, as it now stands in the Bill, is not at all clear so far as drugs are concerned. This is a most sensitive clause, dealing with intimate searches. The All-Party Committee on Drug Misuse, who are

707
concerned Members of both Houses of Parliament and from all sides, feel that the pushers of controlled drugs may find a very convenient loophole in this Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament in its present form.
I have been told by the police that this Bill could become a drug pushers' charter. Up and down the country there are many worried, frustrated and horrified parents who have become aware that their children are on dangerous drugs such as heroin. There are worried health authority members who know that their resources are stretched and their expertise and facilities to cope limited. There are concerned teachers who, like parents, see young people ruining their lives; and there are housing authorities spending large sums of money to provide systems so that residents of housing estates have cards and barriers to try to keep the drug pushers out. There are young people seeing their friends die or succumb to addiction.
To me, the drug pusher is like the serpent who tempted Eve with the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. The victims are often weak, adventurous or bored, and the pushers are greedy, cunning and evil. This growing affliction is becoming nationwide. We should protect our young people with legislation which would help to catch more of the ever-increasing number of pushers.
The customs officers have more ways of doing this than the police drug squads will have. At the moment, I am told, the morale of the police over this matter is not high. This is just what the drug barons want: low morale among the drug squads. It seems that we take a softer line over drug-smuggling than most other European countries. Pregnant women have been found taking drugs into Spain as they did not have to go through the X-ray. They will exploit any avenues. I think I am correct in saying that one can get over a kilo of heroin in the vagina. There are all sorts of ways of hiding things, in contraceptives and other devices. This is a convenient way of travelling with forbidden goods around the country.
In the case of heroin, surely the aim of prevention is of paramount importance as there may never be a cure once a person is addicted. The addict so often becomes a pusher himself, or turns to crime to get the necessary funds to procure his drugs which he cannot live without. No wonder that, for so many different reasons, many people are concerned over this escalating problem!
Since the Misuse of Drugs Act 197 I. the police have had the power to search people for drugs. If this Bill which is before us overtakes that bit of legislation, what are we doing? Are we not taking away an existing power—and now, of all times, when there is a drug epidemic? With this unclear legislation in Clause 53, we should ask ourselves: is heroin, or any other dangerous drug,
"an article which could be used to cause physical injury to himself or others"?
We all know that drugs like heroin do harm to the person who takes them, and also to others, but are they not substances? How would the police stand in court should an action against them be taken? It might open the way for technical arguments about the physical
708
harmfulness of different drugs. Unless controlled drugs are clearly written into this Bill, there will be ever-mounting concern and frustration. It seems illogical to provide the power to conduct intimate searches by the customs service, which they now have, while denying it to police officers who have the responsibility of restricting the availability of controlled drugs which have evaded discovery by customs officers. I am keen that these searches should, whenever possible, be done by medical people; but we are discussing these amendments shortly.
There are many parents with teenage children who are desperately worried. There are parents of young children dreading the time when their children grow up to be teenagers, all because of this dreaded drug pestilence. If your Lordships do not agree to the spirit of this amendment, you may be giving the drug pedlar the chance of laughing in the face of the police and going on his lethal way: or the innocent suspect may be detained and held for long periods. Neither seems an acceptable solution. We are considering protecting life and health. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure recommended that intimate body searches should be given legal authority with the necessary safeguards. This amendment adds to Clause 53 controlled drugs which may have been concealed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has given me permission to say that he supports this amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: As a member of the committee which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned and which has just been set up, I had very little knowledge of this horror which is now striking us, and I am absolutely appalled by what is being discovered in our studies of this very disagreeable subject. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to do something really strong and vital to stop it. The methods are a different matter which we can discuss later, but the fact that the drugs are now so prevalent in this country and so easy to get hold of is really shocking, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to do something in this Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should be prepared to support both of these amendments if we had already passed our Amendment No. 133 and Amendment No. 134, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, but without them it is difficult.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I agree entirely with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Plant. It is a wider amendment than the one proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. On the other hand, she has covered perhaps a different but equally important point. As a former member for quite some time of the Parole Board, I know that a great many drugs, besides large quantities of jewellery and other articles, are brought into this country illegally in this way. Something has to be done to deter—and it is to be hoped to stop—this method of bringing drugs into the country. With the escalation in the use of drugs, I hope that the Government will accept these amendments. They might go some way towards deterring those who are using this method of bringing drugs into the country. Even the small amount of drugs that, by

709
accepting these amendments, we might prevent from getting into the hands of the public will be of use.
Lord Monson: I am afraid that I cannot support my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton in her Amendment No. 131, in that I believe that her amendment goes much too far, in so far as it includes soft drugs, like cannabis and amphetamines, as well as hard drugs. No question of punishment by imprisonment is normally involved in the possession of soft drugs; the offence is punishable by fine. To turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, I believe that the power of intimate search proposed by the Bill is deeply distasteful to most people in this country. I feel that the majority of the public would prefer a tiny minority of criminals to escape justice rather than that these disturbing powers should be extended.
The Earl of Halsbury: I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Monson on the subject of the difference between soft and hard drugs. The amendment speaks about "controlled drugs". The amendment says nothing about the difference between what is hard and what is soft. The words of the amendment should stand.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. People find that these searches are distasteful. None of us would wish unnecessary searches to he carried out. Nevertheless, it is most important that the power for these searches should exist. To that extent I support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
Earl Attlee: I personally am against intimate body searches, for various reasons; but, I am far, far more against anyone and anything to do with drugs. Therefore I have pleasure in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, in Amendment No. 131.
Lord Renton: For the sake of clarity, may I point out that both of these amendments could be made. It is not a question of Amendment No. 130A being broader and therefore of including Amendment No. 131. Both amendments could be made.
Lord Elton: Your Lordships have argued persuasively about a matter upon which I share your Lordships' strong feelings. I should like it to be clear at the outset that neither I nor Her Majesty's Government are under any illusions about the gravity of the threat posed by drugs, hard and soft, to the fabric of our society. But let us analyse this for a moment. Under Clause 53, as drafted, the only circumstances in which a person in detention may be intimately searched without consent are those in which such a search is necessary to avert an immediate risk of injury, whether to the detained person himself or to those responsible for guarding him. That is what I call the protective power of search. The amendments would broaden this power. Amendment No. 130A would permit investigative, intimate search, the object being not to prevent injury but to obtain evidence of
710
serious crime, and Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 would permit a search specifically for controlled drugs.
Your Lordships will know that when we reviewed the Bill's provisions during last summer we came to the conclusion that it was very difficult to justify the retention of the power in the previous Bill to search for evidence of a serious arrestable offence. We were clear that it was right and necessary to retain the power to search a person in custody for protective purposes; that is to say, to look for and remove an article which he or she could use to injure himself or herself or the police officers dealing with him or her. But after taking the most careful account of the serious criticisms expressed by the medical profession and many other groups, and reviewing the available evidence about the value of the power to the police in investigative terms, we came to the conclusion that, on balance, it was right to narrow the scope of this clause of the Bill.
It was a question of balance; and we were fully aware of the fact that a consequence of this decision would be that some evidence now available to the police might he lost. Against this, it was clear that the existence of the power, rarely used though it might be, involved placing at risk the confidence in the police of many sections of the community.
The starting point for consideration of this matter is, I suggest, that intimate searches themselves carry a risk of inflicting injury; and we are looking at questions of life and health, particularly in the case of pregnant women, in considering whether intimate bodily searches ought to be permitted for purposes beyond those of protecting the life of the people concerned. Therefore, it is highly desirable that if they have to be carried out at all, they should be carried out by a doctor. We shall be considering in later amendments the question of whether midwives should also he included, but the main point is that a medically unqualified person might cause serious injury in trying to remove articles concealed in a body orifice, particularly if the person concerned is not only unwilling to be searched, but physically resists.
The clear view of the medical profession is that a doctor should not carry out an intimate search without the consent of the individual, unless it is necessary to deal with an immediate and substantial risk of injury. If we are saying that this ought to be done by doctors, then we must listen to what the doctors say about to whom, and under what circumstances, it should be done. Indeed, we understand that some doctors would not be prepared to undertake compulsory intimate search even in those circumstances, which is of course a reason for retaining the reserve police power in subsection (8), which is intended to protect life and is for no other purpose.
It seems clear that doctors would not be willing to undertake searches without consent if the object of the searches was only to obtain evidence of crime. The effect of these amendments would in practice be that investigative intimate searches would have to be carried out by police officers. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, will carry that image in their minds.
A provision in the Bill which allowed intimate searches for this reason would have to be supported by clear proof that the evidence thereby obtained was

711
vital to the prosecution of serious crime; so vital that it outweighed the risk to the health of the detained person (who might not be guilty) which an intimate search carried out by medically unqualified personnel would carry. While a number of cases have been brought to our attention by the police, I have to say that they do not constitute the proof that is required. Of the cases in which an intimate search yielded evidence of crime, there were few in which the loss of that evidence would have been critical to the prosecution case.
We recognise that there is a cost here in terms of the ability of the police to prosecute serious crimes. As I have said, in some cases evidence will be lost. We take very seriously the point that once it becomes known in the criminal world—and several noble Lords have referred to this—that there are strict limitations on the ability of the police to search body orifices, the temptation to secrete these drugs and other illicit articles will be that much greater. I fully acknowledge the force of the arguments on that point. The last thing we want to do is to encourage greater use of such secretion, hut I suggest to the Committee that it is not the case that criminals will be able to hide what they like with complete impunity.
In the first place, the retention of a foreign body in a body orifice, in particular, the mouth or rectum, for any period is not very easy to accomplish, and more natural methods of recovering a concealed article than a search are available and can continue to be employed. When the offence in question is a serious arrestable offence—which is what the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Plant, envisages—it will be open to the police to apply for an extension of detention if this is considered necessary to allow nature to take its course, resulting in the expulsion of the concealed article.
What I have said so far applies also to the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness. These amendments go very wide. They would in principle permit an intimate search in order to recover a minute amount of cannabis, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has pointed out. I do not think that that is what the noble Baroness intends. The clause as drafted already provides for an intimate search where there is a real risk that concealed drugs might be taken, and thereby place life or health at risk. Of course, it has to be accepted that in some cases of the suspected concealment of dangerous drugs by dealers this will not be the case. But again it does not follow that nothing can be done. How a police surgeon or other doctor deals with a person thought to be concealing dangerous drugs in his body must be a matter wholly for his own clinical and ethical judgment; but I imagine that doctors will certainly wish to explain the serious health risks that are involved with a view to persuading the person concerned to agree to the removal of the article. It is only the final step of a compulsory search that the Bill precludes.
May I make it clear that the Government remain firmly committed to dealing as vigorously as possible with trafficking in dangerous drugs. The provisions of Clause 53 will not affect the ability of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to undertake the intimate search of suspected drug smugglers at ports of entry into the
712
United Kingdom. I hope that this will be a matter of reassurance to my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, because her thrice reiterated concern was with stopping these things coming into the country. The same protection will be available against the drug smuggler coming into this country after this Bill is passed as there is now, because it is not our intention that the repeal of the existing powers to conduct an intimate search contained in the Bill should be applied to customs officers under Clause 107. I think that that will probably take account of the noble Baroness's kilo of heroin. That is a very large quantity, likely to be in the first consignment, and it would be broken down to something a great deal smaller thereafter.
Our view of this difficult and delicate matter, which took account of the wide concern expressed about intimate search by many bodies and individuals, was overwhelmingly endorsed in another place. Our decision was, in the end, based on a fresh appraisal of the risks to the health of detained persons from search carried out by unqualified personnel as compared with the investigative benefits likely to flow from those searches. We concluded that, on balance, the power to carry out an intimate search solely for investigative reasons could not be sustained.
I should like to put that briefly into a wider context. The origin of this Bill was in part the Confait case and in part (was it not?) all the difficulties which led to a widening gap of sympathy between the police force of this country, on the one side, and the fringe of society, on the other. In these amendments we are concerned with searching for drugs of any sort that are controlled drugs, and that would in fact mean allowing unqualified people to search distressed females, wrongly suspected of carrying controlled drugs. The prevalence of that activity would be bound to undermine one of the principal intentions of the Bill, which is to restore the confidence of all people in the police.
Those are the reasons for which I have to ask your Lordships not to look so kindly on these amendments, which are founded on a concern which is real and. I think, passionate, and which it is apparent I share. We have to measure the benefits to society of two, here, sharply conflicting courses of action. I believe that it is right to restrain our hand from reaching for this power for which it yearns to deal with the drugs danger, because I believe that the dangers and the damage that would flow from it would be greater than those it would prevent.
Lord Plant: The noble Lord does not convince me in the slightest. He has made a long speech containing some statements which I should like to contest at some length, but at this hour I do not propose to do so. The noble Lord said that doctors do not wish to do this distasteful investigation. I accept that, but doctors are servants of the state. If we in Parliament write this into the Bill, they must undertake this duty if we so direct. Why should the police have to do it? They have had to do it up to now and they do not like it.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord tell the Committee how he proposes to force the doctors to do something to patients they do not want to do?
Lord Plant: I can only say that the information I get is that there are plenty of doctors prepared to help the police in this direction. The BMA does not represent all doctors.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord be kind enough to consult the BMA and other doctors' organisations, because he will obtain a different impression?
Lord Plant: I am advised by the three police trade unions that they have sufficient information from the doctors that they would be prepared to undertake this duty. They have not talked about this to midwives, which, of course, is something different. I still maintain that people who are employed by the state have to do rather difficult things.
The noble Lord said that it was perfectly all right for the Customs and Excise officers to do this search; or do they ask doctors to do it, who will be welcome to do it?—because the Government have said that in the Customs and Excise this investigation will be done to prevent drugs coming into this country. Therefore, at the ports we can have this investigation but when it comes to a person being picked up—perhaps following a tip-off after he has skipped through at Dover or Newhaven—and taken to a police station, he cannot be searched. It is cloud-cuckoo land so far as I am concerned.
I have not been convinced by what the noble Lord said. The noble Lord has said that the Government will vigorously oppose drugs coming into this country and being peddled on the streets, but they have a palsied hand when it comes to writing a definite clause into the Bill. The average citizen in this country will wonder greatly where is this vigorous attitude on the part of the Government to protect him.
We want confidence in the police but I do not believe that the Government will inspire that confidence if they continue to oppose this simple amendment. I should he perfectly prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, but I feel that I ought to divide the Committee on my amendment to see what support the people of this country have.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am a trifle disturbed by the rather free use that the noble Lord the Minister was making of the word "investigative". There are ultrasonic methods of object detection which make intimate searching of an investigative character quite unnecessary. It is perfectly possible scientifically to establish that there is an object in whatever orifice of the human body it may be. The question of investigating to find out does not arise except by a simple method of applying ultrasonic means of object detection which are used in many cases in medical science for examining, for instance, the outline of tumours in the body, and so on.
The question for the BMA would then be whether a doctor would be prepared to remove a foreign body the retention of which would be contrary to the health of the patient. That would present an entirely different aspect from the standpoint of the medical profession and one to which they might very well consent. It would be very helpful if, bearing in mind what I have said, the noble Lord the Minister would agree to put
714
this matter into cold storage while he takes a second look at it and perhaps put all these amendments together and bring them back on Report with a clearer picture of what is scientifically possible to remove the necessity for investigative search. There need be no search. There can be investigation, but not by the method of search. Thereafter, the question of removing a concealed object from a body orifice would not be an investigative matter.
Lord Elton: The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, is entirely a matter of investigative search, as I understand it. It is a search for evidence. What the noble Earl has said is that there are scientific means of detecting some foreign objects that may be concealed within a person. He has asked me to ascertain what the position of the medical profession might be on the question of having them removed. I cannot anticipate what the answer to that might be. He has also suggested that the matter may be—I do not think that he said put on ice, which sounds rather uncomfortable under the circumstances—I forget what the phrase was—
The Earl of Halsbury: I think I did say that.
Lord Elton: I make no comment on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has in fact made it quite clear that if noble Lords were disposed to proceed down that path they would be very well advised to consider whether the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is not much more widely drafted that she would intend. I do not think that she intends searches for very small quantities of soft drugs. There is a distinction between soft and hard drugs, and there is a distinction between cannabis and heroin. I do not suppose that this matter is to be brought to a conclusion this evening, and of course we shall all wish to consider what others have said.
Lord Renton: I supported the noble Lord, Lord Plant, earlier with great sincerity. But having heard what has been said, especially by the noble Earl, I wonder whether I may make a plea to the noble Lord, Lord Plant, that we should all be given an opportunity to consider this matter further and to come back to it again at a later stage.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wish to say what I decided, before the others spoke, that I would do with my amendment. On Friday of this week the other place will be debating the subject of drug misuse. I have the greatest admiration of the Minister, but over this matter I think that he is being soft and feeble. I have to say it. I think that the lobby of the BMA was not very wise. It lobbied another place. I think I am right in saying that only half the doctors in this country are members of the BMA. After this little debate at 20 minutes to one in the morning, and the debate in another place, I think that the BMA may change its mind. I know that throughout the country there are many very concerned doctors who are beginning to understand what heroin addiction really is.
I should like the Minister to think very carefully about what it is like for young people to be in the last stages of heroin addiction. If he thinks that we are

715
worried about little bits of cannabis, that is making an enormous mountain out of a molehill.
Lord Elton: I must intervene to try to put the noble Baroness right, because I have clearly misled her. There are matters to be balanced within this Bill. Your Lordships are here to balance these matters. There is no point in losing benefits from the Bill in pursuit of other benefits. The noble Baroness is pursuing something in such wide terms that I feel she is actually going to lose a great deal out of the Bill unnecessarily. Her concern is with heroin, cocaine and other things like that. If she is going to sweep up cannabis, she is going enormously to increase the number of the people who are searched intimately—inevitably, I fear, unless there is a great turn-round among the medical profession, by unskilled, or at least unqualified, people.
As a woman she will know what an offensive thing that is. Many of those people will be innocent of carrying any form of contraband at all, anyway. As a mother, the noble Baroness will know how deeply that will offend the people to whom it is done and how it will turn them for a lifetime away from law and order and the police. I cannot believe for one moment that that is what she wants.
If the noble Baroness wants to make the point about hard drugs, she cannot cast all this goodwill overboard at the same time. She would be quite wrong to pursue this now. If she was to come back with another amendment at another stage, having hopefully persuaded the BMA to change their tune, of course it would he a different question. However, the Committee would be quite wrong, and she would be wrong to pursue her amendment as it stands at the moment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank the noble Minister for that because I think that he and I truthfully want the same thing. I think it would be very wise of us to look at what everybody has said and come back at Report stage. That is what I intend to do. I thought that he might say that he might come back at Report stage with a Government amendment, because I think that is really what would be best. It would be best for the country.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: If I may say so, noble Lords have spoken entirely about a drug this evening. I should just like to mention for one moment the question of poison. I do not know whether it has been established how Goering came to hide poison in some manner and for so long as a prisoner at Nuremberg. If someone can hide poison for themselves, they could hide poison for someone else.
Lord Elton: We shall be dealing with poison later. That is definitely something with which one could do considerable harm to somebody, and therefore it will be covered within the terms of the Bill. The noble Baroness urged me to come back to the House. It is extraordinary how everyone wants the Government to do their drafting for them on matters with which the Government do not actually agree. Of course, we shall read the debate with very great care. However, I just
716
want to leave the Committee with this in mind, because some of your Lordships have ladyships and some of you have daughters. All of you must realise how deeply offensive it is to be searched in the sexual orifices of the body by somebody whom you do not respect and who does not respect you, who believes that you have committed a crime which you have not committed, when you cannot reach your mother and nobody has told you that this is likely to happen, when it was not part of growing up or the facts of life.
If this was let loose, as it were, in every police station in the country, as it would be under the amendments if they were not redrawn, then the police would themselves regret the damage this did to the otherwise considerable benefits which this Bill will do for them in improving their relationships with the community. I have probably said enough. Now I think we all have enough to think about.
Lord Plant: I would not want to press this Committee to a Division. I would hate to see the Government defeated at this early hour of the morning. Therefore, I give the opportunity to the Government Front Bench perhaps to ponder on what has been said from both sides of the Committee on this issue and perhaps to come back at a later stage, and we might also discuss it in the interim period.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
12.48 a.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 132:
Page 49, line 10, after ("it") insert ("or they").
The noble Baroness said: As Amendment No. 132 is a technical amendment to Amendment No. 131, it is not moved.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 132A:
[Printed earlier: col. 704.]
The noble Lord said: May I now move Amendment No. 132A and speak to I 36A at the same time.
[Printed earlier: col. 704.]
As the Committee will recollect, I was about half-an-hour ago, in my impetuosity, going to speak to these amendments with Amendment No. 130ZC. The effect of the two amendments is that if accepted by the Committee they would remove what we on these Benches regard as the most objectionable feature of this clause, Clause 53. That is, in certain circumstances it allows police officers, who are wholly unqualified, to make these intimate searches in the private orifices of the body and they are empowered by Clause 110 to use reasonable force so to do. It is believed that these amendments would remove the objection which the British Medical Association had to carrying out searches of persons who did not agree that those searches should be carried out.
It is true that there will still remain a minority of persons who will refuse to have searches carried out by doctors. In those circumstances, it seems that if the

717
general provisions are to remain then they themselves will bear the responsibility for having these searches conducted by persons who are not medically qualified. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I speak to Amendment No. 132A. This amendment would mean that no one could be subjected to an intimate search without consent. This would entirely defeat the object of the power to search, which, I remind your Lordships, is restricted to circumstances in which an intimate search is necessary to prevent death or injury. I shall be brief because the argument is simple. Let us take the case of the woman with a background of suicide attempts who was arrested on three separate occasions in 1981 for drunkenness offences. Each time a search revealed razor blades hidden in her vagina. The noble Lord's amendment would mean that such a person, suicidal and under the influence of drink, could not be searched until she had given her consent. This would not be a protection for the detained person, but quite the opposite.
It is essential to remember the whole time that Clause 53 is all about protection, whether of the detained person himself or herself or of others at the police station at the time. If your Lordships wish to see an increase in the number of deaths in police custody and violent assaults on police officers, this amendment provides a way for it. I am sure that this is not what the noble Lord intends. It is necessary to have this reserve power; otherwise, there will be more deaths.
Lord Morris: In considering this amendment, I beseech my noble friend to take seriously, as I think he intimated but which I should like confirmed, the wise words of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, with regard to the state of the art with ultra-sound techniques and modern X-ray techniques, because then the whole subject of search would go out of the window. It would become a problem of removal rather than of search.
Lord Elton: Of course, it is important to keep up with the state of the art. To have an X-ray machine in every non-designated station is not within the bounds of possiblity. There may be cheaper means which would be useful. These are often matters that have to be dealt with quickly when there is someone who is suicidal and who has concealed about them the means of self-destruction. It is important not to have to take them away to a distant place that has special machinery. But I have the point on board.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: These are extremely difficult questions. The noble Lord the Minister mentions the case of the person who does not submit to a search. Assuming, therefore, that no doctor would carry out that search, it has to be carried out by a police officer. The noble Lord gave the instance of a woman who had secreted razor blades into her vaginal orifice and who was suicidally inclined. I should not like to be a senior police officer who had to decide in that case which was the lesser of the two evils: either to carry out a search knowing there there was a high risk of injury and perhaps of death by the very fact of the search itself, or, on the other hand, to run the risk of not carrying it out. The instance the Minister has given bears out the very dilemma.
718
I would make only this point. Parliament, from time to time, when it has had to interfere with the human body for a certain specific purpose, has gone out of its way to make sure that such interference would be by way of a properly qualified medical practitioner. One has only to think of the Road Safety Act 1967 and the taking of a blood sample for the purpose of ascertaining the level of alcohol in the blood. It would not have been impossible to have trained police officers to carry out that basic exercise, but Parliament did not for a moment contemplate that. The situation that we have here probably makes it necessary that searches should not be carried out save by properly qualified medical practitioners.
Lord Elton: Suppose they are not available. Do noble Lords suppose that the late David Martin would have agreed to have had his mouth searched and the knife found in it, or that he would have refrained from using it if it had been left in his possession?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Without going into the greatest detail at this early hour in the morning, I would suggest to the Minister that there are other powers that could have been invoked. Indeed, there are common law powers that could have been invoked in those circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 49, line 16, at end insert—
("() An intimate search of the genital or anal orifices shall be by way of an examination by a registered medical practitioner.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from the continued presence in this Bill of procedures allowing police officers to perform intimate body searches without consent in certain circumstances. I think I can say that during 40 years of medical practice there is no human orifice into which I have not peered at some time: thus, perhaps I can claim that my advice on intimate body searches is every bit as authoritative as was the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on certain legal matters in connection with the Bill; and I hope that my professional advice on this matter will perhaps be heeded to the same extent.
I really have to echo some of the words which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, used when speaking to an earlier amendment. An intimate body search is not just a simple matter of inspecting an orifice. It is much more a matter of exploring the cavity to which the orifice leads. I assure your Lordships that that is a very different matter, which requires a certain amount of competence and experience, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very rightly said, carries with it certain risks and certain possible dangers; and in certain circumstances, in certain medical conditions, could carry very special dangers.
For a variety of reasons, I do not dispute for a moment the occasional need for such examinations of body cavities, but I share the view expressed so clearly by the British Medical Association. Perhaps I could tell the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that it represents rather more than 70 per cent. of doctors, and not half. It is also the view of the General Medical

719
Council, and, incidentally, was the view of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, from whose report this particular Bill arose. The noble Baroness quoted the Royal Commission, but she did not go on to say that the Royal Commission said that intimate body searches should be done by qualified people, by doctors.
I have noted, of course, the amendment to my amendment, which is down in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham, Lady Macleod and Lady Ewart-Biggs, but I myself would regard that amendment to my amendment as entirely acceptable. What I am concerned about is that people carrying out these examinations should have the necessary experience and expertise. I am satisfied that, in the case of a female patient, a certified midwife would have that expertise, and on many occasions does perform those kinds of examinations professionally.
But what I am rather concerned about is why the Government resist this requirement that these examinations should be done by doctors. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has given us some hints, and perhaps I can answer some of the points which he made in relation to an earlier amendment. No doubt he may have other objections, and later we shall come to those. First, it has been said that it might be difficult to get a doctor. Well, it might. But what on earth do the police surgeons do nowadays? I remember the time when police surgeons spent thousands of man-hours examining people—it was a very lengthy business—in connection with the old drink and driving procedure—a procedure which is now gone: that work is no longer done. At a later stage the police surgeons spent a great deal of time taking blood, also in connection with the legislation to do with blood alcohol levels. There is not very much of that done now. Surely there are doctors available to do these examinations, and if they are available they ought to be asked to do them.
In answer to an earlier argument, the noble Lord. Lord Elton, implied that, on ethical grounds, doctors might well object to doing these examinations without consent. We are not dealing here with the drug question; that is a separate matter which perhaps we shall he exploring on another occasion. We are dealing in particular with examinations performed in an emergency. Perhaps there is danger to the life of a member of the public, or of the person, or of the police, and an examination of a body cavity is carried out as a matter of urgent necessity.
I know that there have been arguments and discussions about this, but I am advised that the considered view of the British Medical Association's Ethical Committee and also the considered view of the General Medical Council—and I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, is not with us and perhaps could have confirmed this point—is that, in the kind of circumstances which are envisaged in this Bill and which were explained so clearly a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, doctors would not refuse to carry out these urgent examinations. Indeed a doctor who did refuse so to do might be regarded as being ethically and professionally negligent in having exposed people to danger by not doing it. But that is another matter.
Another argument might well be that this power to carry out this type of search without consent is a power that would very rarely be needed. If it will be needed very rarely and very rarely used, why have it? I do ask noble Lords to remember that it is inevitable—and I think that the noble Lord. Lord Elton, himself mentioned this—that an examination, a humiliating experience of that kind (and the noble Lord has said that it could be a humiliating experience) would of necessity from time to time be carried out on an innocent person. In addition, we must bear in mind, especially when we are considering matters to do with terrorism, that an immigrant lady from some eastern country in which terrorism is rife might be a very vulnerable person. Many of those people will be insecure people.
Has the Home Office learned nothing from the experiences of what happened at Heathrow in relation to examinations to establish virginity and other matters to do with wives coming into this country? That episode did our country a great deal of harm. If I may say so, it did not do a lot of good for the immigration service of the Home Office. It cast very serious doubts upon it. I believe that if the police—I am not talking about doctors—as police constables possess this power to carry out those kind of examinations without the consent of the patient, it could be very damaging in itself to police relationships and to attitudes towards the police by these vulnerable and perhaps insecure people.
I honestly do not believe that the police want this power. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, apparently said that they were all clamouring for it. That is not my experience from talking to police officers and police constables, both male and female, who have said that it is not a power that they want. This morning I talked to a very senior police officer indeed, and his view in relation to this particular matter—the sudden hiding of a weapon or something that could be a great danger—was that he felt that this was the type of matter which was now dealt with on a kind of ad hoc basis and would be dealt with by a policeman, Bill or no Bill, power or no power. It was his view that to try to put into statute law an elaborate code to provide for an emergency event of that kind really leads one down a very dangerous path indeed. I hope that we shall not retain in this Bill a power that gives the police the right to carry out examinations of that kind by force—because that is what it amounts to.
I do not want to go on any longer; we have had a long discussion on this matter. It is utterly clear that there are so many aspects to it and we shall need to return to it. We shall certainly need to return to the drugs question. I do not want to go into that now because we have passed it. But I certainly share the view that has been expressed that we must do everything possible to trace drugs and to make sure that they are not brought in improperly, whether they are brought in in body cavities or otherwise.
I merely say that the possession of a power by police constables to carry out intimate body searches by force without the consent of patients could be very damaging to the police and not helpful to the police. It is a power that would not have to be used very often. I believe that the medical profession and

721
midwives—as has been suggested—could provide this service where it is necessary, and, if it is necessary, that is the way in which it should be done. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilion Baroness Masham of Ilion moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 133, Amendment No. 134:
At end insert ("or, in the case of such intimate searches of women, either by a registered medical practitioner or by a registered midwife.").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that it is far more acceptable to anyone who may for some reason have to undergo an intimate search to have a trained medical person to do this. They do the job in a routine, practised way. Amendment No. 134 adds to Amendment No. 133 a registered midwife in the case of intimate searches of women. I believe that registered midwives could do this examination of the genital orifices of women just as well as a medical practitioner.
As we all know, many pedlars of drugs are women and I am still hoping that drugs will be included. The women might come from countries where an ethnic group's religion desires an examination of a female to be carried out by a woman. There would be more chance of getting a female if midwives were included. Many nurses, even if they are not working as midwives, hold the certificate of registration of midwifery, and midwives are generally more senior nurses. I think that ordinary SRNs could do the job, but they might not know their way around the vagina as well as the midwives, and that is why I include midwives.
For the sake of good relations with the police and the public, I strongly believe that it is desirable to have medically trained people rather than the police doing this intimate job, especially as senior police officers do not even have to keep up to date with first aid. I am told by constables that this is a sore point within the force. The police should only do the job in a life-or-death situation, and they carry out this sort of procedure when they deliver babies when there is no medically trained person within reach.
I welcome the fact that the Bill states that these searches can be carried out in hospitals, and I hope that they will he carried out in hospitals. It would be quite easy for the police escort to take the detained person to a casualty department or even a ward of a hospital to have the examination. Police officers are regular attenders at casualty departments on various duties. This job, which at times may have to be done for the safety and wellbeing of people, should be done with as little anguish as possible to all concerned.
I should like to add that the drug problem in Canada is in a terrible way and I am told that this is because the police have so many restrictions imposed on them. I am also told that in America the police and the public do not have good relations because the searches are not carried out by medically-trained people. How on earth does the Minister know if someone is travelling round whether he is carrying cannabis or heroin? That has just come to my mind. Until you have looked I cannot see how you can find out what that person is carrying. However, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and add mine to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Before we continue, I should point out that I intend to speak also to Amendments Nos. 135 and 136A.
Amendment No. 135: Page 49, line 17, leave out first ("An") and insert ("Every other").
Amendment No. 136A:
[Printed earlier: col. 704.]
Lady Saltoun: May I draw the attention of the noble Baroness and the Committee to the fact that she said that it could be very upsetting for a woman to be searched by somebody who was not of the same sex. But subsection (6) of Clause 53 says:
"The constable carrying out an intimate search shall be of the same sex as the person searched.".
Baroness Masham of Ilton: That is when a constable does it. Some people from ethnic groups—and I think I am right in saying that it is the Moslems—want a woman to carry out the search, even if it is a doctor. That is why I added the reference to midwives—just to make more medically-trained people available for the women who desire women to carry out the search. I am forgetting about the constables because we do not really want them to carry out the search.
Lord Monson: Although emotionally I had more sympathy with the previous amendment, No. 1 32A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, I reluctantly appreciate the practical objections to it. As a compromise, therefore, I am happy to support the amendment so admirably and thoroughly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and as equally admirably modified by Amendment No. 134 moved by my noble friend Lady Masham.
1.10 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I can add little to what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has already said. I should like to support her in her amendment. Her addition of a registered midwife is important in this case from the point of view of the woman from a particular ethnic origin and because this seems to be the kind of task for which a midwife should be responsible perhaps more than anybody else, or any other member of the medical profession.
Lord Rea: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in this amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I would go further and say that a nurse should be allowed to do this. I do not think that it is the anatomical knowledge that is so important, but rather the ethical responsibility that is placed by the public at large in people in the medical and nursing professions. If you allow someone to invade the privacy of your body, it should be done by a professional group which has been given sanction to do it. This is the main reason why it should be restricted to the healing professions.
In the case of refusal of examination, if one of these professions was entrusted with the task of dealing with the situation they would be more likely to hold back and not immediately rush in. It would be the same as dealing with a hijacking situation, which the police in this country now manage so well; for instance,

723
hijacking in relation to embassies. They would stay back for a while until the object required was given up or passed naturally. As the examination could be carried out in a hospital, as the noble Earl said, it should be possible to take the patient to a hospital and have further less intrusive methods applied in order to detect the object concerned.
The Earl of Halsbury: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, as an amendment to Amendment No. 133. I regard the invasion of the body of an innocent person as a psychological outrage akin to rape. It can be mitigated only if it is done by a member of the caring professions, as opposed to a law enforcement officer. I would support the amendment of the noble Baroness by all means in my power. I fully take her point that a registered midwife, or possibly a state registered nurse, could be added to the provision made in Amendment No. 133. But all three of them, if one added the state registered nurse, are members of caring professions and the sense of psychological outrage being mitigated for an innocent person by being examined by a member of the caring professions is what matters and what we should all try to see ensues.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am not so sure about all this. We are saying that we are agreeing that people should have their bodies invaded, and we are also saying that provided it is done by the caring professions, it is all right. Frankly, I do not think that it is right. It is wrong to humiliate people in the way suggested in the Bill. People should not be intimately invaded in the way it suggests.
I was hoping that your Lordships' Committee would say that they would not accept it. I am somewhat amazed that your Lordships are quite happy to accept it, provided that a doctor or a nurse is prepared and available to do it. It is wrong, quite wrong, to humiliate people in that way. I do not understand why we all sit in this Committee and agree that people should be dealt with in this way. It is quite wrong. I am surprised. I have sat and listened and am surprised that nobody has challenged the premise on which this is being done. It is the premise which should be attacked, not whether a doctor or a nurse should do this. The question is whether it is right that people should be humiliated in this way.
I am sorry, but we need to rethink our attitude to people. Do we really feel that it is right to humiliate people in this way? I find it difficult to accept that that is the way we are prepared to approach this matter. What do we care? Many talk about drugs, of course. Do we really gain very much by agreeing that people should be dealt with in this way? I find the whole approach difficult to understand because what we are doing is to humiliate a large number of citizens in order to find the one or two who are carrying things of which we disapprove.
Is it really in keeping with the basic principles on which this society exists? I cannot really believe it. I have listened to what has been said in defence because I find this difficult to accept. The argument is not whether it should be a doctor to do it. I understand that the profession takes the view—and I hope it sticks
724
to it—that people should not be intimately examined except with their permission. I was brought up to accept that. I accept it and I hope that that is still the position in the profession.
Under this Bill people are to be subjected to intimate examinations against their will, but all we hear tonight is discussion about whether or not the examinations are to be carried out by doctors or nurses. That is irrelevant. It is the insult to the individual that matters. Whether the examination is carried out by a doctor or a nurse is irrelevant. It is disgraceful, and people should not be expected to accept such treatment. I am very saddened to think that in your Lordships' Committee we are to agree that people should be treated in this way. I am shocked that there has been no challenge to the basic approach to the problem; to the fact that we are saying that people can be intimately searched against their will because we think that they may be concealing drugs or some other articles which are illegal. My God, where are we heading?
1.23 a.m.
Baroness Trumpington: Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 draw a distinction between a search of a person's genital or anal orifices and a search of any other body orifice. They would allow only a doctor to search genital or anal orifices. Amendment No. 136A would go further, and allow only a doctor to search any orifice. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is mistaken; we have repeatedly made it clear that we hope that all intimate searches will take place by way of an examination by a doctor. But, as my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place at column 3040 of the Committee proceedings:
"On occasions it is a task that has to be undertaken, and by police officers if no one else can or will undertake it … with the best will in the world there can be no guarantee … that a doctor can be found within a reasonable time who will be prepared to carry out the search".
Clause 53 will permit an intimate search only if it is reasonably believed that it is necessary to recover a dangerous article and thereby prevent an immediate risk of physical harm to the detained person himself or those guarding him. In our view the Bill has to cater for the eventuality, however rare, that arrangements cannot be made for a doctor to attend, whether because the doctor is unwilling to do so or for some other practical reason which it is not within the ability of the police to change. One example is that of two men remanded to prison who were returned to police custody. They had smashed a mirror in prison and one was found to have shards of glass hidden in his sock, while his companion had a three inch shard hidden in his rectum. In another case, a woman charged with prostitution and wounding was found to have glass and razor blades in her mouth.
In these circumstances, we consider that as a matter of practical commonsense such dangerous articles must he removed as quickly as possible by a police officer if it is not practicable for a doctor to do so. By imposing a rigid rule that all searches of genital or anal orifices must be performed by a doctor, the amendment would place a small minority of detained persons who have concealed weapons on themselves at risk of serious injury, not forgetting the police officers

725
and others with whom they are in contact at the police station. The fact that the genital and anal orifices are more intimate than the mouth does not affect the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked: why have the power? One must have the power because the need is an urgent one. Intimate searches are likely to be carried out in a very small number of cases each year, and it should be possible as a rule for arrangements to be made for a doctor's participation. But there must be a reserve power available to guard against the possibility, however rare, that it may not be possible to find a doctor within a reasonable time who will be prepared to carry out the search. We know of at least one police surgeon who has expressed reservations about performing such searches, and there may be others. They are entitled to their own ethical views, and there is no question of obliging a doctor to undertake any procedure of this kind. But it cannot be right to require the police to go from doctor to doctor while they are holding a person thought to be concealing a weapon. Swift action may be necessary; and while it is easy to say that all that has to be done is for the person concerned to be kept under constant observation, life is not always so simple and straight-forward.
Now we come to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who has proposed that because of their expert knowledge of female anatomy midwives, too, should be permitted to conduct a genital or anal examination of a female. We naturally take seriously her concern that police officers should not be obliged to embark on such a delicate procedure when someone better qualified might be available; and we are very grateful to her for bringing forward this suggestion. I concede that it is certainly an oddity of the clause as drafted that it rules out the intervention of a midwife even though a midwife would he better qualified to undertake an intimate search than a female police officer. However, I would point out that female police officers do have a short period of training in this kind of thing. I met two sensible and sensitive police officers entirely to go through this question with them. They do not like doing this job, but they will do it in order to protect their lives and the lives of people who, in very rare cases, refuse to undergo an intimate body search.
I also appreciate Lady Masham's remark concerning women objecting to male doctors. Subject to your Lordships' views, I should like broadly to welcome her suggestion, though we would want to consult the professional bodies concerned before proceeding to amend the Bill. Among the questions we would seek to raise with them are the extent to which registered nurses as well as midwives should be covered, in which case the limitation of the proposed extension to certain searches of females may itself be too narrow. If the point is that it is better, if an intimate search has to take place, for it to be conducted by someone with a relevant qualification rather than the police officer, then on the face of it this applies to any intimate search, whether of a male or female, and whatever the orifice concerned.
However, if the group of those permitted under the Bill to carry out intimate searches is extended in
726
this way—and it may be that we shall be unable to conclude the necessary consultations before the Report stage—I have to tell your Lordships that we still believe there is need to retain subsection (5). I believe that the safeguards written into the clause are sufficient to ensure that intimate searches will only take place when necessary and will be undertaken by a qualified person, unless this is simply not practicable.
If your Lordships agree at a later stage to permit midwives or nurses to conduct an intimate search, the likelihood that a police officer will ever be called upon to do so will be even slighter than it would be under the Bill as drafted. But if, on some very rare occasion, tragedy is to be averted, the Bill must contain a reserve power for the police to act in these circumstances. For this reason, I must advise your Lordships to reject these amendments but to note the Government's intention with regard to midwives and nurses.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she not agree that the attempted removal by an untrained constable of a 3-inch shard of glass from a person's rectum would almost certainly cause greater injury, both to that person and to the constable himself, than if the shard was left in place pending the removal of the person to hospital for a surgeon to do the job?
Baroness Trumpington: If the noble Lord had been listening to me, he would have heard me saying that police officers have a period of training; and I should have thought that it would be rather a relief, whatever the circumstances were, to get rid of that particular object. Furthermore, the police officers would be wearing gloves which were sterilized, which is more than the piece of glass would be.
Lord Winstanley: I was gratified to note that the noble Baroness agreed with some of the things that I said in moving my amendment, and perhaps she in her turn will be glad to learn that I agreed with some of the things that she said in reply. But it necessarily follows that we are not entirely at one on the matter, particularly in relation to the reserve power, as well as in relation to one or two other things.
It is utterly clear from this fairly lengthy discussion on this amendment and on earlier ones that we cannot really resolve this whole matter here and now in this Committee at half-past one in the morning. The whole issue is far too important to be settled on this kind of basis. There are many noble Lords who have points that they would like to contribute, and for us to take firm decisions on any of these matters here and now would be very unwise indeed.
Before I take a certain step with regard to my amendment—and once I have taken that step then the noble Baronesses who have their amendment to my amendment will be left in limbo—I seek advice. Do I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, or shall I let them withdraw their amendment to my amendment, before I withdraw my amendment?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): The Question before the Committee is that Amendment No. 134 in the name of the noble

727
Baroness, Lady Masham, be agreed to. It is for the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to decide.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for what she has said, and I shall be very glad to do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has suggested. But we will come back to this matter with the noble Baroness and the Government. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 133?
Lord Winstanley: Yes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the same understanding as the noble Baroness: that this is a matter to which I shall want to return later and on which we shall want to take decisions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
1.35 a.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 49, line 17, leave out second ("an").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to remove a superfluous word of two letters. I hope that your Lordships will agree. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 136A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 136B not moved.]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 136C:
Page 50, line 23, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this section shall apply to a child under the age of 14.")
The noble Baroness said: There has been a long discussion about the general principle of the intimate search, but this amendment is confined to protecting children under the age of 14 from an intimate search in any circumstances. I should like to make one point: that we strongly object to the fact—we shall be arguing this point again concerning fingerprinting—that the age of criminality has been reduced to 10 years.
Although I know that in the case of intimate searches it might be argued that the intimate search should be carried out in order to find a concealed weapon, I find it very hard to imagine how children under the age of 14 can be included in this category. It is possible that a child might have a penknife concealed in its clothing but I do not believe it is possible that a penknife could be concealed within its person. I can see no justification for ever subjecting a 10-year-old to such a traumatic experience as an intimate search. I believe I have said sufficient to make a special case. The inclusion of 10-, 11-, 12- and 13year-olds would be very wrong. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I hope it goes without saying that I find the prospect of the compulsory intimate search of a juvenile as distressing as anybody else, and I am sure it is right for your Lordships to give the most careful thought to whether or not Clause 53 should be subject to additional restrictions and safeguards in such a case. But I must very regretfully say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that exactly the same things as I quoted in the case of the last amendment have been found in the various orifices of children under the age of 14. Life is like that. It is very sad but it is true.
We sincerely hope that it will never be necessary to undertake the intimate search of a child under the age of 14. I hope that Clause 53 is never used in this way. But what would be the effect of the amendment, bearing in mind that an intimate search will be permitted only if it is necessary in the interest of saving life or limb? Children under the age of 14 need greater, not less protection than older people if they have to be detained in police custody. If, Heaven forbid! the police were ever confronted with a case in which a dangerous article was being concealed in a child's body, what would they do? I suggest that the Clause 53 power should be available in such a case as a last resort, in the same way as in any other case.
I do not think it would be safe or prudent to come to the conclusion that this could never happen. Regrettably, it is not unknown for terrorists to use children as the carriers of dangerous articles. Utterly repugnant though such callous exploitation might be, we should be doing neither these unfortunate children nor the police a service by imposing a total prohibition on the search of children. Indeed, one effect of such a prohibition could precisely be to increase the temptation of the wicked to use children in this way. With much regret, I must ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Could the noble Baroness give me examples of children in England and Wales who are being used in this way by evil men and by terrorists for the purpose of carrying concealed weapons? It is well known that children are used in Northern Ireland, but there is separate legislation for that in Northern Ireland. There is the EPA and the PTA. Could the noble Baroness give me examples of children under the age of 14 in England and Wales who are being used for carrying concealed weapons?—otherwise I should have thought it was an example of legislation for the extreme case rather than for the generality of cases. It would appear that the risk involved in including children under the age of 14 is greater than the risk involved in excluding them.
Baroness Trumpington: When speaking about terrorists, I was speaking about terrorists in an international context. There are bad people all over the world who use children. I have seen bad parents use their children for shoplifting. I know of one case where a child had a razor blade in its mouth and of another who had glass in its rectum—and they were both aged under 14. I cannot give the noble Baroness an exact example, and I agree with her that in Northern Ireland, where such use of children is common, the offence is covered by another Act. The

729
whole point of this clause is that it serves as a last resort in an urgent issue.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me two examples, but I still do not think that that is very many. However, I should like to thank her for explaining this provision so fully and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Right to have someone informed when arrested]:
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 50, line 25, after ("be") insert ("informed at once that he is").
The noble Lord said: Clause 54 states:
"Where a person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled, if he so requests"—
and so on. The point of this amendment is to correct the certain reluctance which the Government appear to have employed all the way through this Bill to tell people of their rights. We want to alter this clause, so that it will read:
"he shall be informed at once that he is entitled",
to a certain privilege. It is a very simple amendment and even at this time of night I believe that noble Lords opposite will understand it, and so I shall say no more. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): A similar amendment to this was rejected in Committee in another place and was tabled, but not moved, on Report there. I must say that I was a little surprised that it was resurrected here, and I was particularly surprised at the form in which my noble twin proposed it, referring to a "reluctance" on the part of the Government to inform people of their rights, because precisely the opposite is true. Of course people ought to be informed of their rights.
If the noble Lord will read the draft code of detention, he will find that in paragraph 3.2 the code requires the custody officer to give the precise information when a person is told of the grounds for his detention and, in any event, before he is questioned. Paragraph 3.3 in addition requires this information to be given both orally and in writing, and the custody record will contain a record that this has been done, signed by the person concerned.
Therefore, to say that the Government wish not to inform people of their rights is the precise contrary of the truth. I suppose someone might ask, "Why is this included in the code, but not in the Bill?". The reason is rather simple, when one comes to think of it. The demand is that the arrested person shall be informed at once, and that that should be a statutory obligation. What does a poor police constable do when he finds a man drunk and incapable in the street and takes him in? Is he going to inform that drunk at once? It will not do the person concerned the slightest bit of good because he is drunk and incapable. Further, let us suppose that a constable takes in someone who has
730
committed the offence of reckless driving, or of killing a person by reckless driving, and who is himself badly injured. Is the constable going to inform that person at once, before he recovers from a coma? Of course he is not. Let us leave these matters in the flexible form in which we have proposed them.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I find my noble and learned twin's explanation clear, but disagreeable. However, I shall not pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 50, line 33, after ("offence") insert ("and who is not an arrested juvenile").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the questioning of detained children and young people. There are a number of other amendments which relate to exactly this same point:
Amendment No. 140A: Clause 55, page 52, leave out line 16 and insert ("without delay")
Amendment No. 140B: Clause 55, page 52, line 24, at end insert ("save where the child or young person at the time of his arrest is living with his parent or guardian in which case this subsection and subsection (2) above shall apply")
Amendment No. 140C: Clause 55, page 52, line 24, at end insert—
("() The time at which an officer informs or attempts to inform those persons referred to in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section and where appropriate, the reasons for failure to contact such person or persons, shall be recorded in the arrested juvenile's custody record required under this Act.")
Amendment No. 147C: Clause 56, page 53, line 9, after ("offence") insert ("and who is not an arrested juvenile")
Amendment No. 154YA: After Clause 56, insert the following new clause—
("Questioning of arrested juveniles.
.—(1) An arrested juvenile shall only be questioned in the presence of an appropriate adult who is not a police officer.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, an arrested juvenile shall be entitled, if he so requests, to appoint the appropriate adult person of his choice who may be present during questioning in accordance with subsection (1) above.
(3) An 'appropriate adult person' may include any person so informed under section 55 of this Act, or any person so informed under section 54 of this Act, or any solicitor.
(4) Where any such adult persons are unavailable or unavailable within reasonable time, any other adult person who is not a police officer must be present in accordance with subsection (1) above.")
I presented this group of amendments to the Government Whips' Office, but I am not sure whether they were received. However, if I may speak to the group together, it will enable us to deal with them very quickly. Amendment No. 137A is to prevent delay in informing a friend, relative, etc. of the arrest of a young person. Amendment No. 140A is equally to make it the duty of the police to inform a grown-up more quickly. If I may go on with my group of amendments—or would the Committee prefer that I dealt with them separately?
Lord Elton: It is for my noble and learned friend to consider: but I went across to the other side of the House during Division in order to discover whether this was in fact a group of amendments that had been put together or had just arrived, as it were, of its own

731
volition. Nobody would own up to it, so we decided that it was not a group and was a mistake. The noble Baroness has now revealed herself as the progenitor of it, but my noble and learned friend's amendment papers may not be arranged in that order. I am merely giving him an opportunity to consider whether he wants to take them together, or separately.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not care one way or the other.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Amendment No. 140B concerns a child or young person on a care order but living at home. This amendment is to ensure that both the authority and the parents should be contacted without delay. This is again giving the same urgency. The intention of Amendment No. 140C is once again to bring some speed into informing parents, and so on, about a detained young person. We feel that this amendment and our proposed new clause under Amendment No. 154YA would go a long way to prevent the present abuses in which completely inexplicable delays are made in informing parents of the whereabouts of their children, and would indeed greatly increase parents' and young people's confidence in the police. Apparently complaints of such delays are in fact the most common ones among those received by the children's legal centre. The reason for the delay could in many cases only really be analysed as a deliberate wish of the police authorities to deal with a child or young person without the presence of an independent adult.
Finally, Amendment No. 147C is to prevent delay in access to legal advice for an arrested juvenile. Parents, relatives and social workers are often not able to act as sufficient safeguards for the young people in police stations and they have a limited knowledge of the rights of suspects and police practice. Furthermore, it is felt that the more serious the charge a young person is suspected of, the more essential it is for them not to make a false confession through persuasion: and this would of course prevent such a risk. The underlying aim of all these amendments is to preserve the trust and good relationship between young people and the police. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This is rather a curious bundle of amendments because the arguments for and against them differ almost entirely from one to the other. But I will try to deal with them seriatim, as well as I can. The one which is formally being proposed by the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 137A, is I think misconceived. It can in the nature of things only apply to the case where the juvenile nominates a person other than his parents as the person whom he wants informed. But Clause 55 of the Bill places an absolute obligation on the police to notify the parents or guardians of an arrested juvenile and his detention as soon as is practicable. This obligation is amplified in the draft detention code, paragraph 3.6. Clause 55(5) of the Bill makes it clear that this obligation is additional to, and not subsumed by, the provision of Clause 54.
To turn to arrested juveniles, Clause 54 allows them to nominate someone other than their parents to be informed. If they do so nominate, I cannot myself see
732
why the same provisions for delay should not apply to them as in the case of adults.
If a juvenile is detained in connection with a serious arrestable offence and it is thought that notification of his arrest to the friend he has nominated would lead to one of the consequences set out in subsection (5), we take the view that it should be possible for delay to be authorised. His parents will have to be notified under Clause 55, and that safeguard will be unaffected. I would think that his parents might strongly disapprove in this particular case—that is, where the third party is nominated by the juvenile—of the person their son has asked to be notified and might feel very aggrieved that the police had no option but to give effect to this request. I think that that deals with Amendment No. 137A.
As regards Amendment No. 140A, the only difference between the text in the Bill and the words proposed is that under the amendment the parents or the guardian would have to be informed "without delay", whereas in the Bill they would have to be informed "as soon as practicable". The only effect of the amendment, therefore, is that the parents would have to be informed when it was not practicable for them to be informed. I cannot quite see the purpose of that.
Dealing with Amendment No. 14013, new subsection (4) inserted into Section 34 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 requires the local authority to be informed of the arrest of a child in its care in place of the child's parents or guardians. The amendment of the noble Baroness would provide that, in the case of a child or young person in the care of a local authority who is living with his parents or guardians, both they and the authority would have to be informed of the detention.
That point was raised in the Commons' Committee and the principle would, in principle, be acceptable up to a point, but problems may arise where the parent himself is involved in the crime of the child. To provide flexibility it was decided to deal with the point—and I think it has been dealt with—by way of an amendment to the draft detention code. I think it would, therefore, be right for the police, while having to inform the care authority as soon as practical, to retain discretion as to whether or not to inform the parents as well because they might be involved in the crime. For this reason, we have already met the point raised by the amendment of the noble Baroness, but in the draft detention code rather than in the Bill. This will allow greater flexibility, while the Bill will ensure that in all cases the care authority is involved. Paragraph 3A of the draft detention code is as follows:
"If the arrested juvenile is in the care of a local authority but is living with his parents, then, although there is no legal obligation on police to inform them, they as well as the authority should normally be contacted unless suspected of involvement in the offence concerned."
That follows the exact point to which I have been speaking.
As regards Amendment No. 140C, a similar amendment was withdrawn in the Commons' Committee. It has always been our intention that information should be noted in the custody record and the draft detention code already meets the point, which is in any event already no more than good police

733
practice. Paragraph 2.6 of that code requires all entries to the custody record to be timed and signed by the maker. Paragraph 3.6 repeats and expands the provisions of this clause, and paragraph 3.10 makes it clear that a record must be kept of the action taken.
Amendment No. 147C would make absolute a detained juvenile's right of access to a solicitor. A similar amendment was rejected in the Commons Committee. In practice, of course, it would be impossible to deny access to a legal adviser to a juvenile, as to anyone else. A juvenile can be interviewed in the absence of an adult only in the exceptional circumstances set out in annex C to the draft detention code.
Paragraph 13.2 makes it clear that an interview with a juvenile in other circumstances shall not commence until legal advice has been obtained if the adult considers this is needed. Thus, if the police delayed access to a solicitor they could not interview the juvenile at all. There is a remote possibility that the police, having informed the parents under Clause 55 that their child has been arrested for a serious arrestable offence, nevertheless have grounds for delaying access to legal advice and hence any interview with the juvenile until they have pursued their investigation by effecting the arrest of confederates where that arrest could have been prejudiced by the inadvertent leaking of information. But this is an unlikely scenario. If it never arises, the noble Baroness will have the consolation that the absence of her amendment made no difference in practice.
I think that I have now dealt with all the amendments in the bundle. There are different arguments in each, but I think that there is an underlying theme in what I have been saying, which is that it is possible to put too much in the Bill and so tie up with red tape what is already amply safeguarded by the detention code.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for replying to all the amendments in such a lucid way. The purpose of several of them was merely to prevent delay. As I say, there is considerable anxiety, and there have been many complaints from parents when delay has occurred. As a parent, one can recognise that great anxiety is caused by not knowing where one's child is. The need to inform a friend or relative is to cater for the fact that some parents do not respond and to ensure that a grown-up is there with the child. However, as I say, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his very full reply, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137B and 137C not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Additional rights of children and young persons who are arrested]:
2 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 52, line 10, leave out from ("is") to ("his") in line 11 and insert ("in police detention").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have a feeling that both this amendment and Amendment No. 141,
734
which should be taken with it, are drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 141: Page 52, line 30, leave out ("has been arrested") and insert ("is in police detention").
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 52, line 13, leave out ("detained") and insert ("arrested").
The noble and learned Lord said: May I take with this Amendment No. 140?
Amendment No. 140: Page 52, line 14, leave out ("detained") and insert ("arrested").
I do not think that these amendments are absolutely drafting but they are very nearly drafting. Clause 55 will ensure that parents, and so on, are informed of the fact and reasons for detention. The amendment alters that to the fact and reasons for the arrest.
It may be convenient if I take the amendments together. At present the clause requires the parents and similar responsible adults to be informed of the fact and reasons for detention. On reflection, it has appeared to those responsible for the drafting that it would be more useful to give them the fact and reasons for the arrest. This would make it crystal clear that parents should be aware of the nature of the offence which their children are suspected of having committed. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a far more pertinent fact than that the child is detained for his own safety. Of course, the requirement to inform the parents where their child is detained is unaffected, and will continue. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 140A, 140B and 140C not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 141:
[Printed above.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I have dealt with this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Access to legal advice]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 142, 148, 149 and 150.
Page 52, line 37, leave out from ("person") to ("shall") in line 38 and insert ("who is in police detention at a police station").
Page 53, line 17, leave out ("detained") and insert ("in police detention").
Page 53, line 28, leave out ("detained person") and insert ("person in police detention").
Page 53, line 36, leave out ("arrested") and insert ("who is in police detention").
The noble and learned Lord said: I was going to move these amendments, Nos. 142, 148, 149 and 150. I was going to say that they were simply drafting amendments. Unfortunately, the Law Society have raised a point so I will return to them on Report and not move them at this stage, if that is agreeable.
[Amendments Nos. 142, 148, 149 and 150 not moved.]
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 143:
[Printed earlier: col. 703.]
The noble Lord said: The argument for this is much the same as the argument I put forward, with brevity, for Amendment No. 135. I expect the answer will be much the same, but as a matter of interest I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment adds to subsection (3) of Clause 56 the requirement that consultation with solicitors should take place privately. The amendment is otiose since subsection (1) already makes it clear that the right to consult a solicitor that the clause establishes is a right to do so in private.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With the greatest respect, the answer is not related to the question.
The Lord Chancellor: This is what I think, if I am talking about the same amendment, which is always doubtful at this hour in the morning.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I accept that the noble and learned Lord wishes to give the same answer as the answer to Amendment No. 135.
The Lord Chancellor: I feel sure that is so, and I am much obliged to my noble twin!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 143A:
[Printed earlier: col 703.]
The noble Lord said: A quick point, if I may, because of earlier debates. I believe that something similar is in Clause 6(3)(ii) of the code. The real question is that because it is so vital for a suspect to know of his rights, and now indeed for a person arrested to know of his rights, it should be in the Bill and not in the code.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It is an argument we have had many, many times. It is suggested it is so important it should be in the Bill and not in the code. I am afraid that is really the only issue.
The Lord Chancellor: I will say it should be in the code and not in the Bill, but I have lost the place in my brief, if it is there.
Lord Mishcon: May I make life easier for all of us and repeat that this is a point that has been raised earlier in the debate. The Government have made their position clear. We have made our position clear. I think the sensible thing is to beg leave to withdraw, having recorded my remarks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 144:
Page 53, line 2, leave out ("subject to the following provisions of this section").
The noble Lord said: This is the amendment to which the noble Lord gave me such a succinct and effective answer that I ask for no more.
The Lord Chancellor: Are we on Amendment No. 144? Did the noble Lord say he had withdrawn it?
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): It was not moved.
The Lord Chancellor: It is not moved, then.
Lord Mishcon: That was the answer.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 53, line 3, leave out ("as soon as is practicable") and insert ("without delay").
The noble Lord said: Surely the point is that, "without delay" is so much clearer than, "as soon as practicable".
The Lord Chancellor: The only effect of this would be to make the thing be done without delay instead of as soon as practicable, which means that it would have to be done even when it was not practicable to do it so soon. I do not think, therefore, that it is clearer.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would agree that in those circumstances there would not be delay. But I have an idea—I think that this is illustrative of the whole of our proceedings at the present moment—that minds even as brilliant as that of the noble and learned Lord are not as clear at this time of the morning as at other times. That applies possibly to all of us and is somewhat a criticism of our debating matters of this kind and trying to legislate at this hour of the morning.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not think that I can be accused on this occasion of lack of clarity of mind due to the lateness or earliness of the hour because I was reading what it says in my brief.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord at other times of the day does not do that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 146:
Page 53, line 3, at end insert—
("(3A) An officer of at least the rank of inspector may give a notice under subsection (3B) below if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any act likely to be done by a solicitor consulted by a person in the exercise of the right conferred by subsection (1) above—

(a) will lead to interference with or harm to evidence connected with a serious arrestable offence or interference with or physical injury to other persons; or

(b) will lead to the alerting of other persons suspected of having committed such an offence but not yet arrested for it; or

(c) will hinder the recovery of any property obtained as a result of such an offence.

(3B) A notice under this subsection is a notice requesting the solicitor to refrain from doing a specified act for a specified period not exceeding 36 hours from the relevant time, and stating the reasons therefor.

737
(3C) An officer may give a notice under subsection (3B) above orally or in writing but, if he gives it orally, he shall confirm it in writing as soon as is practicable.
(3D) If a notice under subsection (3B) above is given—

(a) the detained person shall be informed of it; and

(b) it shall be noted on his custody record.

(3E) The duties imposed by subsection (3D) above shall be performed as soon as is practicable.
(3F) If the reasons for giving a notice under subsection (3B) above shall cease to subsist before the period specified in the notice has expired, the officer giving the notice shall so inform the solicitor as soon as is practicable, and thereupon the notice shall cease to have effect.
(3G) So long as a notice under subsection (3B) above remains in effect, the solicitor to whom it has been given shall not be treated as being under any duty to his client to do any act mentioned in the notice.")
The noble Lord said: This is really a very important amendment and rather a difficult one. I do not propose to go into it tonight. It is insufferable that we should be discussing these important matters of people's liberty at this hour. I shall therefore not move the amendment but bring it back on Report.
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 146A:
Page 53, line 3, at end insert—
(" () A person in police detention who has indicated that he does not wish to be questioned except in the presence of a solicitor shall not be questioned by any police officer except in the presence of a solicitor, provided that questioning may take place in the absence of a solicitor if an officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it on the grounds that irretrievable harm to the investigation would be caused or serious harm to persons or serious loss of or damage to property would be caused if such questioning were not to take place immediately.
() If a person in police detention who has indicated that he does not wish to be questioned except in the presence of a solicitor is questioned in the absence of a solicitor, then any statement or admission made by the person during such questioning shall not be admissible in evidence at any subsequent trial.").
The noble Lord said: If I may paraphrase the words of noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I am in exactly the same position, as are my noble friends, on this amendment. It is a most important amendment, as was that of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. The sensible approach in this situation is not to try to debate it now.
[Amendment No. 146A not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 147 is agreed to, I cannot call any of Amendments Nos. 147A to 150 inclusive.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 147:
Page 53, line 4, leave out subsections (4) to (18).
The noble Lord said: I shall have to say something about his amendment. It relates to a matter that we may wish to discuss further. The position, roughly speaking, is that we think it is right that the more severe subsections in this clause should be removed and posted to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Amendment No. 154 inserts a new clause to go into the prevention of terrorism Act. The amendment now before the Committee is a paving amendment to take out what is in this Bill and to put it into the terrorism Act.
It is a very complicated issue to be discussed at this moment. We give notice that we consider our proposal a desirable step to take. The kind of sanctions necessary against terrorists must not be removed but should not be in this Bill. I do not wish to say more at this stage. We shall come back to it on Report. I hope that I have made clear our general intention.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 53, line 4, at end insert ("nominated by the custody officer within 6 hours from the relevant time and a solicitor of his own choice").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, which I daresay is imperfectly drafted, is to provide that the maximum period for which an arrested person can be prevented from seeing a solicitor of some sort is reduced from 36 hours to six hours. I can appreciate that there may be a very tiny minority of solicitors who have somewhat shady contacts with the criminal profession and that the police may understandably feel that it would almost certainly hinder the course of justice if such solicitors were informed of their client's whereabouts before a full 36 hours had elapsed. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned earlier that there was an extremely tiny minority of such people. Equally certainly, there are a very much larger number of totally trustworthy solicitors known to the police and called, I believe, duty solicitors. In the case of these totally trustworthy solicitors, surely a much shorter period of delay would be justified.
In this particular case the arrested individual would not be able to use the services of his own solicitor, but at least he would be able to get some impartial advice from a solicitor nominated by the police within the much shorter period of time that I suggest; although in passing I may say that I think that perhaps even six hours is a trifle long, provided the solicitor chosen is one who is known to and trusted by the police. I beg to move.
2.10 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I had intended to deal with this in conjunction with Amendment No. 147, with which originally it was agreed to group it. This was an amendment by my noble friend Lord Donaldson. I was going to explain at much greater length why this was not an acceptable view. But the amendment which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, apart from the period of time, does shoot at one wrong target—an unacceptable principle. I myself, as a member of the legal profession, could never easily acquiesce in the view, which apparently is contained in Amendment No. 147A, that the unfortunate suspect should be represented by a solicitor nominated by the custody officer within six hours of the relevant time. That seems to me to put the legal representative in a totally impossible position, and one which I could not accept.
In No. 147A there is another period, which relates to a period of six hours, on which a more complicated series of arguments would arise. But, broadly speaking, I think that the noble Lord is shooting at the wrong target. The period of time provided in the text

739
of the Bill was not trying at all to deal with dishonest solicitors, even if there are any; it was designed to prevent the inadvertent leaking of information through a perfectly honest solicitor. I shall give one simple example, which I should have given at greater length had my noble friend Lord Donaldson moved his rather more comprehensive amendment.
He might ring up, on the instructions of his client, and say to the wife of the suspect, "Will you please take the dog out for a walk?", or "Will you please note that I've paid the gas bill?". This might be a coded piece of information which was wholly unacceptable to the prosecution because it might pass on some vital information to somebody who was a confederate. The solicitor would be perfectly innocent, and it is precisely to prevent the inadvertent leaking of information while investigations are going on that the Bill contains the provision in the form it does.
So the target aimed at is a wrong one. It is not the dishonest solicitor, if there is one, who is aimed at, but the inadvertent leaking of information by means of a perfectly innocent message. The simplest, of course, might be to tell somebody that his friend, Mr. So-and-So, was at the police station—a perfectly innocent piece of information, but it might alert him to the fact that he was under arrest. So the target is the wrong one, and the principle that a man should be represented by a solicitor of the police's choosing is not an acceptable one.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I knew that this amendment was drafted imperfectly, but it seems to me that a man who was arrested might prefer to see a solicitor, albeit one not of his own choice, within six hours rather than have to wait 36 hours for a solicitor of his own choice. As far as most people are concerned, certainly it would be the lesser of two evils. Again, I would imagine that a solicitor known to and trusted by the police would be up to the type of tricks suggested by the noble and learned Lord, such as ringing the man's wife. He would be on the lookout for any such messages passed to him. But as I am not experienced in these matters, perhaps I am wrong in that assumption.
This whole worrying business of people being prevented from seeing their solicitors for as long as 36 hours continues to disturb me. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would say whether the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on 29th June, which ruled that restrictions on two convicted IRA men from having access to legal advice violated Article 6 of the European Convention, has any bearing upon this clause as a whole.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that the answer is, no. There are other European codes which are rather more draconian than ours.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. If no other noble Lord wishes to speak—
Lord Mishcon: I think that possibly I should say one sentence. The noble and learned Lord will appreciate that we on these Benches are very anxious about this provision. We wonder whether the target is quite what
740
the noble and learned Lord says; but this is not the time, in the circumstances, to have a debate on the matter.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his intervention. I am glad to know that I am not alone in being uneasy about this clause. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147B 147C, 148, 149 and 150 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 55, line 1, leave out subsections (19) to (22).
The noble Lord said: This is a Government amendment. It removes from Clause 56 the provisions relating to legal aid and replaces them with a new clause. Provision is made for solicitors' clerks to act under the scheme. This is basically a drafting amendment. The subsections of Clause 56 which deal with the making of arrangements for duty solicitors to provide advice and assistance to those detained at police stations, making effective the right conferred by Section 56(1) of the Bill, are now arranged in a new clause.
Additionally, it may not be possible to provide at all times and in all places that a solicitor will be available immediately, but that a solicitor's representative might be. Thus the wording of the new paragraph (a) in Section 1 of the 1982 Act has been amended to ensure that a solicitor's representative would be qualified to act under the arrangements where necessary as he would be under the usual legal advice and assistance provisions. In those circumstances, and with that brief explanation, I point out that it is almost a drafting amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.152:
Page 55, line 30, at end insert—
("() This section (except subsections (19) to (22) above) does not apply to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions.")
The noble Lord said: This is another paving amendment for the new clause contained in Amendment No. 154, neither of which I am going to move tonight and which I shall keep for Report.
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 153:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Legal aid for persons in detention.
. In section I of the Legal Aid Act 1982 (duty solicitors)—

(a) in subsection (1) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (a)—

"(aa) for the making, by such committees, of arrangements whereby advice and assistance under section 1 of the principal Act is provided by solicitors for persons in police detention who—

(i) exercise the right to consult a solicitor conferred on them by section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; or

741

(ii) are permitted to consult a representative of a solicitor, and";

(b) in paragraph (b), after the word "representation" there shall be inserted the words "or advice and assistance";

(c) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—

"(1A) A scheme under section 15 of the principal Act which relates to advice and representation at magistrates' courts may provide that arrangements made under it may be so framed as to preclude solicitors from providing such advice and representation if they do not also provide advice and assistance in pursuance of arrangements made by virtue of a scheme under that section which relates to the provision of advice and assistance for persons in police detention.";

(d) in subsection (5), for the words "such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "arrangements made under subsection (1) above for the provision of advice and representation at the court; and

(e) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (7)—

"(8) References in this section to persons in police detention shall be construed in accordance with section 111(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I think I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 154 and 154YA not moved.]
Clause 57 [Tape-recording of interviews]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 154YB:
Page 55, line 31, at end insert ("on or before the coming into operation of Parts IV and V of this Act").
The noble Lord said: Again, in the circumstances I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 154YB not moved.]
Lord Morris Lord Morris had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 154ZA:
Page 55, line 35, leave out ("at police stations").
The noble Lord said: I very strongly get the impression that it is certainly the mood of the Committee that this Committee stage should be completed as soon as possible. These matters raise points of the greatest importance. Perhaps I might ask my noble friend whether, in the circumstances, he can assist me by reassuring me that if these amendments are brought back at the Report stage, the utmost assistance will be given to the mover of the amendments to speak more than once at that stage.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Morris: My noble friend the Chief Whip certainly gave the impression while he was sitting down that that unquestionably cannot be done.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: What is the question?
Lord Morris: I was saying that it is very much the mood of the Committee at the moment that the Committee stage of the Bill be completed as soon as possible. I was asking whether, in order to expedite proceedings, if someone withdraws his amendment,
742
however important it may be, the utmost assistance would be given to the mover of the amendments at the Report stage to come back more than once. However, I understand that that is against the rules normally pertaining at the Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor: Let me make it absolutely clear—and I speak in the presence of my noble friend the Leader of the House—that in Committee we cannot proleptically alter the rules of the House when the House is sitting as the House. Of course my noble friend would have a right of reply if he moves an amendment on Report; but, apart from that, he cannot speak more than once.
Lord Morris: To put it another way, I suspect that if I were to argue this point at this particular time, I would not receive sympathetic ears from any side of the Committee. In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 154ZA not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 154ZB and 154ZC not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Fingerprinting]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 154ZD:
Page 56, line 40, at end insert ("or
(c) applies to a child or young person").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 154ZD and 154ZE relate to a very important matter affecting young persons—namely, finger-printing.
Amendment No. 154ZE: Insert the following new Clause—
Fingerprints etc. of young persons
(" .—(1) Except as provided by this section no arrested young person's fingerprints or body impression or non-intimate sample or photograph may be taken without the appropriate consent.
(2) Where the appropriate consent is withheld in the case of any young person not less than 14 years old

(a) who has been taken into custody and is charged with an offence before a magistrates' court; or

(b) appears before a magistrates' court in answer to a summons for any offence punishable with imprisonment,

the court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of a police officer not below the rank of inspector order the fingerprints or body impression or non-intimate sample or photograph of that person to be taken by a constable.
(3) Fingerprints or a body impression or a non-intimate sample or a photograph taken in pursuance of an order under this section shall be taken either at the place where the court is sitting or, if the person to whom the order relates is remanded in custody at any place to which he is committed.
(4) The fingerprints or body impression or non-intimate sample or photograph of an arrested young person may only be taken in the presence of a person required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act, or in their absence, any other adult who is not a police officer, save where the young person specifically requests that this be done in private.
(5) Where the fingerprints or body impression or non-intimate sample or photograph of a young person have been taken in pursuance of an order under this section, then, if he is acquitted, or the examining justices determine not to commit him for trial, or if the information against him is dismissed, the fingerprints or body impression or non-intimate sample or photograph and all copies and records of them shall be destroyed.").
If young people were to know that we were discussing this important matter at this hour in this Committee, so attended, we would run into serious trouble with

743
young persons all over the country. We are making a farce of our proceedings in this way, and in these circumstances I do not propose to move these two amendments.
[Amendment No. 154ZD not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 154ZE not moved.]
Clause 59 [Intimate samples]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 57, line 39, at end insert—
("() Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause, in any proceedings against that person for an offence—

(a) the court, in determining—

(i) whether to commit that person for trial; or

(ii) whether there is a case to answer; and

(b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged,

may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper; and the refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence against the person in relation to which the refusal is material.").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will not forgive me if I explain at some length our reasons for tabling this amendment to a clause which deals with a sensitive and difficult subject—the taking of intimate samples. At present, refusal to provide an intimate sample may, if it has been possible to bring a case before the court, be referred to as part of the prosecution evidence. If the defendant exercises his right not to give evidence at the trial, that is all that can be said. Even if he gives evidence and is cross-examined on why he refused, the prosecution have to recognise that he is entitled to refuse. If the Bill did not make provision for the taking of intimate samples at all, I think we should still have to ask ourselves whether this was satisfactory, and whether it was right that it should always be in the interest of a suspect—who is, in fact, guilty—to frustrate an investigation by refusing a sample. The Bill alters the present position by providing that consent to the taking of an intimate sample must be in writing; this we believe to be right in principle and in accordance with one of the main objectives of the Bill, which is to move towards carefully recorded investigations, and more formal opportunity for the accused person to exercise his rights. But it means that there is an even greater need to address this question since it seems possible that the requirement for written consent will encourage the guilty to refuse it, secure in the knowledge that if they are eventually brought to trial they will be at no disadvantage for having refused to co-operate.
The problem then is how to ensure, so far as can be done by acceptable means, that refusal of consent does not give the guilty a greater chance of acquittal. When this was discussed in Committee in another place, there was wide support from all parties for a provision suggested by the honourable Member for Montgomery that refusal to give a sample, without good cause for the refusal, should be capable of corroborating the prosecution case. That is what this amendment provides. This means that it would be for the jury to determine the weight to attach to a refusal. That seems to be the best way of providing for the wide
744
variety of motives which may be behind the refusal to provide an intimate sample. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am sure that if any of my criminal lawyer friends—which I am rather lacking at the moment—were here they would say that this is the thin end of the wedge of removing the right to silence. I am not lawyer enough to deal with this but this is a case which must be looked at very carefully.
Lord Elton: There is no question of speech; it is the giving of an intimate sample. I have adduced the reasons, and I do not accept that your Lordships cannot discuss matters of substance at this late hour because the timing of the debates is necessary if we are to cover all the ground which your Lordships wish to discuss. I do not wish to make an issue of that, I merely say that this has been considered and I have advanced the reasons for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
2.27 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 154B:
Page 57, line 39, at end insert—
("() In the case of an arrested juvenile, an intimate sample may only be taken in the presence of a person required to be informed of his detention under section 55 of this Act, or in their absence, another adult who is not a police officer, save where the arrested juvenile specifically requests that the sample be taken in private.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move 154B and speak to 154C.
Amendment No. 154C: Page 57, line 41, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this section shall apply to a child under the age of 14.").
Amendment No. 154B is to bring the safeguard of the presence of an adult with the young suspect out of the code of practice into the Bill. Amendment 154C is to prohibit the taking of intimate body samples from children aged under 14 years old. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The Bill allows an intimate sample to be taken from a child under 14 only if the following conditions are satisfied: the child is detained in connection with a serious arrestable offence; the sample would tend to confirm or disprove his involvement in the offence; a superintendent authorises the taking of the sample; and the parents or guardian of the child have given their consent to the taking of the sample.
The code on identification adds to this point that the parent or guardian must he present when a sample is taken. This is covered in paragraph 1.8 on page 36, which provides the safeguard embodied in the first amendment. If all these conditions are satisfied in the case of a child—and this may indeed be very unlikely—then I see no reason why the sample should not be taken; but this would be forbidden if the second amendment were accepted. If a 13-year-old boy were suspected of murdering another child and forensic evidence were crucial, then, subject to the ample safeguards in the clause, I believe that it should be possible for the police to ask the parents for their consent and then to act on it if they gave their consent. I recognise the sincerity of the noble Baroness in

745
seeking to give the maximum protection to juveniles suspected of serious crime, but these particular amendments do not serve her purpose very well.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I thank the Minister for his reply, but it is not just a matter of sincerity. We are trying to stop children from being incorporated in this ciminal procedure. Anybody would agree that a child of 10 would suffer serious psychological effects from having an intimate body sample taken. It is not just a matter of sincerity; it is felt that this would help protect children from entering the criminal environment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154C not moved.]
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Other samples]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 58, line 8, leave out ("has been arrested and").
The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. This is a drafting amendment. A person cannot be in police detention as defined in Clause 111 unless he has first been arrested. The words which this amendment deletes are therefore superfluous. The definition in Clause 111 itself requires minor adjustment, but that will not affect this matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 [Destruction of fingerprints and samples]:
The Chairman of Committees: I now call Amendment No. 155ZA. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 155A.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 155ZA:
Page 59, line 11, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 12.
The noble Baroness said: I shall briefly put the purpose of this amendment, which seems a practical one. It is to make the destruction of fingerprints and samples applicable to juveniles who have merely been cautioned. There is no doubt that cautioning plays an important role in diverting young offenders from the courts, and this is agreed. But young offenders are never cautioned for serious offences, only minor ones, and I feel that there can be no justification for increasing the criminalisation of those young people who have been cautioned by permitting the retention of their fingerprints and samples. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The effect of Clause 61(2) is that if a suspected person's fingerprints have been taken in the course of a criminal investigation but it is decided not to prosecute, then the fingerprints must be destroyed, unless he is formally cautioned for that offence. In that case it is a matter for police discretion whether or not his fingerprints are retained on record and, if so, for how long. It was accepted in Committee in another place that it was reasonable for the police to be able to retain the fingerprints of an offender who
746
had been formally cautioned as an alternative to prosecution, to be able the more readily to detect any re-offending by him. It was thought, however, that it should be made clear that this ability should depend upon the caution being a formal one, that is, inter alia, one requiring a person's admission of the offence concerned. An undertaking was given to amend the Bill in this sense and this amendment honours that undertaking.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, however, would wholly deny the police the ability to retain fingerprints in the event of a caution. Of course your Lordships will know that the Government have been taking forward the Royal Commission's recommendation that the use of cautioning as an alternative to prosecution should be encouraged and greater consistency achieved between the practices of different police forces. We have only recently published a report which examines practical ways of achieving this. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a desirable aim and that nothing should be done to make the caution an unattractive option for the police. However, this might well he the effect of this amendment. I do not believe that it would be right for a by-blow of the development of cautioning to be the impairment of the capacity of the police to detect offences such as burglary. I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.
At the same time I thank the noble Baroness for her sporting reception of my suggestion in an earlier amendment that she should grow up. Of course it was meant as a backhanded compliment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am not sure about growing up, but I feel even more than grown up at twenty-five to three. I think perhaps the noble Baroness feels the same. However, I thank her for her full answer. We shall think about this again and possibly bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 155A:
Page 59, line I leave out from ("and") to end of line 12 and insert ("he has not admitted it and been dealt with by way of being cautioned by a constable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Part V - supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 155B, 155C and 155D not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Codes of practice]:
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that if Amendment No. 156 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 156ZA.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 156:
[Printed earlier: col. 8.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 28, if your Lordships can remember that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 156ZA not moved.]
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [Codes of practice - supplementary.]
[Amendment No. 156ZB not moved.]
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 156ZC:
Page 61, line 14, leave out ("a") and insert ("that").
The noble Lord said: I shall deal with this very quickly. This is purely a drafting amendment. I sincerely believe, rightly or wrongly, that it improves the grammar of the particular subsection to which it applies.
Lord Elton: Subsection (6) provides that the parliamentary procedure which Clause 64 lays down for the issue of a code of practice applies (with appropriate modifications) to any revision of a code. This amendment seeks to substitute the word "that" for "a" in line 14, so making it clear that the parliamentary procedure for the revision of a code is the same as that required for the first issue of that code. But since the procedure is the same for all codes, it does not make any difference whether the reference is to a particular code or to any code. I do not think that it makes a tremendous amount of difference which we do. I think the noble Lord may perhaps agree at this late hour to leave the Bill as it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think we have now reached the stage at which we are generally agreed that we have gone as far as we can. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Child Abduction Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Cycle Tracks Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Video Recordings Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before three o'clock.

  DAIRY PRODUCE: SELF-SUFFICIENCY LEVELS
  DAIRY PRODUCE: SELF-SUFFICIENCY LEVELS
  BLINDNESS ADDITION
  BLINDNESS ADDITION
  INDONESIA: DEFENCE SALES
  INDONESIA: DEFENCE SALES
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE LEGISLATION
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE LEGISLATION